Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Minicabs (Regulation)

Dr. Jenny Tonge: This petition comes from more than 2,000 citizens of Kingston, Surbiton, Richmond Park and Twickenham. It states:
The petition of the citizens of Kingston and Surbiton, Richmond Park and Twickenham declares that the petitioners are concerned at revelations that a convicted rapist has been working as a minicab driver in the Borough of Kingston until exposed.
We note that outside London, 9 out of the 10 largest metropolitan areas have regulations requiring appropriate checks on a driver's criminal record, health, vehicle and topographical training.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to regulate London's minicab industry and the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 March], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. James Gray: I am delighted to have a second opportunity to speak on the Bill's Third Reading, having been interrupted at 2.30 pm last Friday when, the nation will recall, I was saying how much the Opposition welcome the broad thrust of the legislation. When I mentioned that to a colleague this morning, he put me down by saying that since then the nation will doubtless have been holding its breath. I am glad to say that since then I have had a week off to write an extensive and detailed speech on the subject.
I should re-emphasise that the Bill has cross-party support. It was introduced in another place by the noble Lord Archer of Sandwell. It was debated with a great deal of reasoned argument and was amended to some degree. The Opposition would argue that further amendments could have been introduced at that time or, indeed, on Report or in Committee in this place. We shall argue during this morning's discussions that although the Bill is a flawed diamond, it is a diamond. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) for bringing the Bill before the House. He is to be congratulated on picking up and running with a measure which was extensively designed and consulted on by the previous Government.
Last week, the House heard an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who summarised our general support for the Bill. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), both of whom raised some concerns about the Bill, which we shall reiterate this morning. We shall do so not because anything can be done about them during the Bill's progress through Parliament, but because they might be taken into consideration by those who will have the onerous task of putting the Bill into operation—including the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and others. This morning, we shall take the opportunity to raise one or two concerns about the way in which the Bill will operate.
I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lang, who drafted the Bill and consulted on it when he was President of the Board of Trade. I am glad that that excellent work has been recognised by the Government, who have taken up the Bill more or less word for word and brought it into play.
It is slightly regrettable that the Minister of State's support for the Bill, which he has gone to some length to voice over recent weeks, has not gone as far as allowing him to introduce the measure as a Government Bill. The Conservative Government did not have time to do that because the consultation period began in October and November 1996, and then, of course, the unfortunate event on 1 May prevented us from bringing the Bill before the House.

Mr. John Healey: I remind the hon. Gentleman—and he may then recall—that there was an


opportunity for the previous Government to introduce the Bill between the end of consultation on the draft Bill and the Queen's Speech on 23 October 1996.

Mr. Gray: There was indeed a short period between the end of consultation and the following Queen's Speech, although, now that Labour Members have the privilege of being in government after 18 years, they will know that draft legislation tends to be debated by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation in March or April, and that the Queen's Speech would have been drafted well in advance of the completion of consultation. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right that, technically, the Conservative Government could have included the Bill in the Queen's Speech. It is certain, however, that the Queen's Speech in November was more than a year after the consultation, so the present Government could have included this worthwhile Bill in it, instead of some measures that we would argue were less desirable. Perhaps today is not the occasion to make cheap party political points across the Floor of the House. Broadly speaking, the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is worth recording that the Conservative Government published a draft Bill in August or September 1996, and thereby introduced a useful new principle into the conduct of business. The publishing of draft Bills gives Back Benchers and the Opposition a good opportunity to consider the Bill properly before Second Reading. That is a first-class measure of the Conservative Government. I am very glad that the Labour Government have recognised the excellence of our idea and are running with it—although they are doing so slightly ungraciously, in claiming that the notion of draft Bills was their own. The Bill demonstrates that we thought of the notion and believed that it would be a good thing. Some thought that we ought not to publish draft Bills, so I am glad that the Labour Government are following our lead.
In order to get Friday morning going, it is worth reminding the House of the Bill's broad principles. The Bill amends the law relating to the settlement of individual employment rights disputes. Industrial tribunals will be renamed employment tribunals—a relatively harmless exercise, but to be welcomed because the term is rather more positive. We are talking about employment, a good thing, rather than the slight flavour of a bad thing associated with industrial tribunals.
The Bill permits new procedural rules to be introduced to streamline some tribunal procedures, and extends tribunals' jurisdiction. ACAS will be given power to draw up an arbitration scheme to settle unfair dismissal disputes, and the Secretary of State will be given power to extend that role to other areas of employment law if it becomes necessary or desirable.
The Bill amends the law relating to compromise and dismissal procedures agreements, and extends the powers of conciliation officers. It also introduces measures to encourage the use by employees and employers of internal appeal procedures in cases of dismissal, and makes provision for compensation in cases of unfair dismissal that involve disability discrimination.
The Bill has obtained the approval of ACAS, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. It must almost be unique in achieving the

approval of all three organisations. It is unusual for campaigning bodies to be silent when legislation affecting their main business is on the brink of reaching the statute book. Normally, we would hear such bodies saying that a measure either goes too far or does not go far enough. The only exception to the silence has been mild approbation from time to time, when the subject has drifted into such organisations' field of vision.
Despite the silence, the Bill invests a significant amount of trust in the Government to adjust employment dispute procedures competently and fairly. Conservative Members very much hope that that trust is justified. I suspect that a huge quantity of change is about to occur in employment disputes, not least because of the minimum wage, economic and monetary union and the social chapter. All those factors will lead to a significant upturn in employment disputes. I hope that the Government will bring this new law into play in such disputes in a fair, sensible and just way, and that the trust that ACAS, the CBI, the IOD and others have put in them will prove well placed.
The House is naturally greatly in favour of the notion of industrial tribunals; they are an important and valuable way of settling employment disputes, and I hope that they can continue to be so. To date, about 1 million cases have been settled by industrial tribunals at about 300,000 hearings, which is a significant amount of help to many employees and employers alike.
One of the key points that we have raised since the publication of the draft Bill is that the industrial tribunal method of settling disputes should be easily accessible, informal, speedy and an inexpensive means of redress.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not there a case to be made, however, for an even more informal and even less expensive way of dealing with disputes: allowing for greater elimination of disputes before they reach tribunals? Will my hon. Friend comment on whether an opportunity has been missed in the Bill? I know that some aspects of clause 13 partially address the matter.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right; he touches on the main purpose of the Bill. The increase in the number of disputes over recent years and the clogging up of industrial tribunal procedures are precisely why the hon. Member for Wentworth introduced the Bill. He has tried to enable disputes to be settled more quickly and easily, and in a more accessible way. I shall in a moment make one or two mild criticisms of the Bill. Such changes would have made procedures even more accessible and speedy. My hon. Friend is right that the reason for the Bill is that the mechanisms have become slightly clogged up.
There is a backlog of cases, and delays have risen to unacceptable levels. The Green Paper recognised that case loads had more than doubled, from 34,697 in 1989–90 to 71,661 in 1993–94. As a result, only 54 per cent. of complaints in England and Wales were heard in 26 weeks during 1993–94. Improvements thereafter raised the percentage of complaints heard only to 76 per cent. in 1995–96. The net result is that people are waiting more than half a year for the settlement of their disputes, which can lead them to become rancorous and unpleasant in their own minds. Their disputes could be settled perfectly happily and the rancour removed if disputes were heard more quickly.
Since the Green Paper was published, the number of cases has risen further. In 1996–97, there were 88,910 cases, and the number is forecast to reach more than 109,000 a year by the beginning of the millennium. That would be unacceptable in the present industrial tribunal set-up, so the purpose of the Bill is to enable the case load to be more easily heard.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem, and the reason why the Bill has been introduced, is that there is too much legislation going through the House? As a result, more and more people will be entitled to their rights, which will put pressure on the system. In many ways, we are creating the problem.

Mr. Gray: Although I would happily agree with the general libertarian instincts of my hon. Friend's intervention, I am not certain that libertarianism extends as far as removing individuals' rights. The purpose of an industrial tribunal is to ensure that individual rights are carefully and sensibly heard. My hon. Friend, like me, is the greatest possible libertarian; I am sure that he would not want the Bill to interfere in any way with individuals' rights to lead their lives free of interference by central Government.
Rather contrary to what my hon. Friend said, I think that the reason why the case load has increased so significantly is the large increase in the number of discrimination cases, both racial and sexual. In 1993–94, discrimination cases amounted to only 8 per cent. of the total, but by 1995–96 that proportion had grown to 30 per cent.
To introduce a degree of political antipathy across the Chamber for a moment, I must warn that the political correctness in everything that the new Labour Government do may lead to an increase in discrimination cases. I shudder to think what would happen if, for example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I assist the hon. Gentleman? The House recognises an important distinction between Second and Third Reading debates. Whereas a debate on Second Reading may roam far and wide over what should or should not appear in the legislation, and over its general background, a Third Reading debate is strictly confined to the contents of the Bill that has progressed that far through the House.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely thought that as it was a Friday morning, and people's minds may not have been on the subject since last week, it might be helpful to remind them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members will have done as I have, and read the wise words of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the Bill last week.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially for your flattery in describing my words as wise. I shall accept your guidance and move on to the contents of the Bill rather than its general background.
In that context, I shall raise the Opposition's two or three reservations. Clearly, the details cannot be changed between now and Royal Assent, but our concerns may be taken into consideration by ACAS and others, or by the Government, when the Bill is being applied.
Two or three of those concerns were raised by Opposition Members last week, and it may be worth my reiterating them now. First, the burden of proof seems to be veering towards the employer's having to prove that the employee is guilty, rather than the other way round. The approach should be even-handed between employer and employee, and there should be no burden of proof on either side. The people sitting in judgment should be able to make their minds up without forcing the employer, to a greater degree than the employee, to provide proof.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the consequences, if the Bill becomes an Act, of its interaction with the minimum wage legislation that the House has recently passed? That legislation reverses the burden of proof, and would mean that an industrial tribunal operating under the Bill before us would be obliged to regard an employer as guilty of having broken the minimum wage law if he simply failed to have access to records proving that he had not done so.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. Having recently spent days and days on the National Minimum Wage Bill as it progressed through the House, he is far more of an expert on such matters than I could claim to be. He is right that the burden of proof is moving towards the employer, and that minimum wage cases will certainly bring extra pressure on industrial tribunals.
As I have already said, I hope that the Government will find ways of ensuring that the clogging up of industrial tribunals does not become worse.
On Second Reading last week, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said:
the burden of proof is moving away from the person making the complaint to the person who is required to answer it".—[Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1577.]
He was right. By raising that issue, he began to question the basis on which tribunals work. I should like to see tribunals work on the basis of facts, rather than making judgments on the basis of bias or assumptions.
There are several less important more technical amendments that we should have liked to be made, but sadly, the hon. Member for Wentworth has not accepted them. First, we are concerned about the meaning of the phrase "appropriate consent" in clause 4.
We are also worried about the provisions that allow two judges rather than three to sit. My background is in shipping in the City of London, where extensive use is made of commercial arbitration of disputes that often involve many millions of pounds. There would never be such an arbitration with only two arbitrators. We would always have three, both because there would then always be a majority on one side of the dispute or the other, and because three arbitrators can bring greater wisdom to bear on the problem. If justice is not only to be done but to be seen to be done in industrial tribunals, it is regrettable that the Bill would allow a tribunal with only two members, one of whom would be the chairman.
Equally, we regret the fact that the Bill has not taken up our suggestion in the consultation paper that, in addition to using ACAS, we should be allowed to use


private arbitration. The City of London uses private arbitration extensively. Two or three experienced business people in the area of concern—in my case, shipping—are set in judgment, a case is put to them, and they use their wisdom and experience to come to a just decision.
There is no reason to presume that because arbitration is private, there is something wrong with it. It is also used extensively to sort out settlements in divorce cases these days. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Bill has intentionally removed the use of private arbitration from the gamut of weapons that tribunals can use. A Conservative Bill would have allowed both sides to agree to private arbitration, and we regret the fact that that possibility has gone.
Leaving aside those small lacunae and qualifications, the Opposition welcome the speeding up of the process. Employment disputes will now be heard and settled more quickly. We are also pleased that the hon. Member for Wentworth, and doubtless the Government behind him, have recognised the excellence of the work done by Lord Lang when he was President of the Board of Trade and have taken up the draft Bill that we proposed and on which we consulted.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth on his work. The Bill is good—by and large, with a few small exceptions—and we believe that it will help in the process of industrial disputes taken through industrial tribunals. We hope that the House will welcome it.

Mr. Tim Collins: I pay tribute to the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in speaking of the Bill as a whole. I shall confine my remarks to three specific clauses.
Clause 3 provides for an important extension of the number of occasions on which it will be possible for decisions to be taken by a chairman acting alone rather than by three people sitting together.
I have a constituency case under the existing industrial tribunal system, involving someone who has come to me to express his unhappiness with a decision taken under the existing provisions that already allow a chairman to act alone. That is why I am concerned about the great extension of the possibilities for one person to sit alone in judgment.
My constituent told me that there was a personal antipathy between him and the chairman, and that the chairman had refused to listen to the evidence appropriately and properly. He believed that that man was at the very beginning of his career as a chairman of industrial tribunals, and was not experienced enough to understand the proper workings of the law.
That is a matter which my constituent must pursue through various routes, including the law. None the less, it illustrates the potential dangers of a dramatic extension under clause 3 of the number of occasions on which a chairman acting alone can take decisions.
I welcome clause 11, which will bring about an important extension in people's rights. It will build on the existing provisions whereby the Secretary of State can act as a guarantor of statutory redundancy payments if an

employer is insolvent, and extend them to cover situations in which there has been an agreement settling a dispute about such a statutory redundancy payment.
However, clause 11 flags up another issue that has been brought to me by a different constituent, who was awarded a statutory redundancy payment some years ago. He worked for a partnership. One of the members of that partnership has been declared insolvent, but the other has not. The guidance that my constituent has received from Government officials and lawyers is that, until both partners are declared insolvent, the provision whereby the Secretary of State can step in to deal with statutory redundancy payment is not triggered. That is unjust, because there is no question of the payment being received, although it is clearly due. I hope that if the House considers further amendments to this legislation at a later date, it will consider closing that loophole.
I welcome clause 13, which deals with the procedure for encouraging greater use of internal appeal procedures. That important matter enables me to raise a point expressed by an employer in Cumbria who is concerned about the way in which the tribunal process operates. That employer has built up a small business in the face of considerable economic adversity in some areas of south Cumbria over the past 10 years. Sadly, clause 13 does not sufficiently rebalance the effects of the existing legislation, and an appearance before an industrial tribunal presents a major difficulty for someone running a small business. For the two or three days on which that small business man had to make an appearance, staff had to be taken away from their normal functions—they were not serving customers or dealing with stock—and much of his senior management time was taken up preparing for the case.
It is all very well for Governments to encourage people to start small businesses, but it is difficult to find people who are appropriately skilled or trained to take over when employers have to appear before an industrial tribunal. Clause 13 begins to address the point raised by the employer who came to see me, but it does not go far enough. He complained that, if an employer is taken before a tribunal, the proceedings of the case are reported in the local and sometimes even national press, and the company's reputation—perhaps even the employer's personal reputation—is blackened. Even if the employer's case is subsequently upheld by the tribunal, the company's commercial reputation is greatly damaged.
Unfortunately, there is no equal sanction on the person making the complaint. He or she cannot lose. At best, the complainant will walk away with a substantial sum and, at worst, there will be no financial penalties whatever. The employer faces a different situation: at best, he will walk away with an unaltered financial position; at worst, his financial position and commercial reputation will be seriously impaired.
Clause 13 encourages greater use of internal appeals procedures, which must be good. However, the Bill does not begin to redress the essential imbalance in the justice process.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend is not being entirely even-handed in this matter. We have all seen cases in recent months and years, in which employees have taken their employers to tribunals with cases based on serious allegations, such


as sexual harassment, and the tribunals have clearly found that the employees had not given reliable evidence or had been telling lies. There should be a major sanction against employees taking cases to tribunals unjustifiably.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue that I was seeking to address, however, was that of costs. The Cumbrian employer who came to see me was concerned because the person making the complaint against him was receiving legal aid, incurred no costs whatever and was in a no-lose situation, whereas he felt that simply by being taken to the tribunal, he was a loser. His commercial reputation was damaged, as were the effectiveness and efficiency of his commercial operation.
That is why clause 13 is welcome. It is one of the main reasons why the Bill is appropriately receiving bipartisan support. However, I hope that when the House reflects on those issues both later today and in the future, it will realise that, even after the passage of the Bill, the position will remain imperfect.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I whole-heartedly endorse what my hon. Friend says about costs. It is a question not just of legal costs but of disruption costs. Any tribunal case causes disruption, particularly to a small business, whose key staff may be out for up to three days.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House must deal with the issue of disruption costs. We now have a good system, which is reflected at the beginning of the Bill, of setting out a compliance cost assessment in every Bill that comes before the House.
It is now a matter of bipartisan consensus that there should be more small businesses, and we all recognise that they are the engine of growth and job creation in the economy. Clause 13 goes some way towards striking a balance—but does not go far enough—between effective and efficient enforcement of employee rights, and the rights of employers to go about their business and to create jobs for existing and future employees.
Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, we must go much further towards achieving real equity and justice and incentives to create jobs. I hope that the House will not fight shy of returning to that matter time and again until we have a system that meets the concerns that I have expressed and the problems that employees and employers in south Cumbria face. We need a system in which we can all feel a sense of pride and which will be an asset to our economy.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I, too, support the Bill, but wish to express some reservations. First, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all those who serve on employment tribunals. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because my mother-in-law has been on industrial tribunals for many years, and I can vouch for her skill in settling disputes of all kinds. I should also mention that I have a small business and am well aware of the burdens placed on small businesses that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned.
While it is right that employees should be given good and strong legal protection, that must be balanced against the need to encourage small businesses to take risks in a difficult world and, in the process, to create jobs. Unless jobs are created, there will be no rights to go with them.
One of my concerns is that the Bill makes no clear distinction between the problems faced by small and large businesses, and does not consider the merits of placing a limit on the scale of awards against small businesses. The effect is that many small businesses, such as mine, have felt the need in recent years to take out specific insurance. Although it is not inexpensive, it is almost becoming due diligence for a small firm to take out such insurance because, without it, it faces the unquantifiable risk that a claim will be made that will not only disrupt the running of the business, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned, but, in extreme circumstances, might even lead to its closure if the scale of the award is severe enough.
In such circumstances, while the business might be able to pull through, public knowledge of such an award would have a catastrophic effect on the business. Therefore, the risk-award profile for a small business in coming to an industrial tribunal differs greatly from that of a large firm.
What are the terms of the insurance that a small business can take out? Typically, the small business would have to seek the advice of the insurers—before the insurer was prepared to back the business, it would have to be convinced that a proper internal procedure had been undertaken before a case came to an industrial tribunal. That means that when an insured small firm is considering an employee case, it would feel obliged to ring up the insurer for advice—the insurer would almost take the role of a personnel department. That could be a good thing; it may mean that small companies receive well-informed and conscientious advice, so that fewer disputes end up at a tribunal.
As the balance of rights between employer and employee is increasingly shifting to the employee, insurers feel that, to maintain reasonable premiums that are in the reach of small firms, they must offer excessively cautious advice. Employers who think that they have a good case for dismissing an employee will be told by their insurer that, if the matter goes to a tribunal, they may not be covered by the insurance. In many cases, the Bill's provisions on insurance will not apply to small firms. If the Bill does not take account of the needs of small firms, it will be yet another piece of well-intentioned legislation which, in fact, inhibits job creation.

Mr. Collins: Is not my hon. Friend's argument supported by the fact that, because employers find it easier to dismiss employees in the United States than in western Europe, there has, in the past 10 years, been much greater job creation in the United States than in western Europe?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Mr. Paterson: On the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), does my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) agree that in America micro-businesses—which are defined as businesses with fewer than five employees—have created a huge proportion of the new jobs?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friends are very much to the point. As we have discovered over the past two decades,


a deregulated labour market creates a bigger labour market. The danger is that legislation, however well intentioned, may reduce the number of jobs. The concern about the Bill is not so much that small firms will not want to risk increasing the number of their employees, but that their inability to sack an unsatisfactory employee will inhibit the growth of the business—there will be, if I may use the phrase, a double whammy.
Nevertheless, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, although I do not believe that it goes far enough. Before long, the House will have to deal with the special requirements of small firms.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: In considering the Bill, we must recognise that, in today's global market, it is vital that we protect the viability of our industrial and commercial base. The importance of an harmonious working environment to the quality and quantity of industrial output cannot be overstated. I believe that industrial tribunals have contributed enormously to that environment. They are impartial and independent of the Government, trade unions and employers.
As an employer, I know how important it is to have an easily accessible, informal, speedy and inexpensive means of adjudicating employment rights issues. Where possible, of course, parties should deal with disputes through in-house procedures. The advantages of that are not only the cost, but privacy and the enhancement of long-term employer-employee relationships.
That is not always possible, however, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, there are inherent problems in taking such a course. If the Bill streamlines the procedures of industrial tribunals and extends their jurisdiction, while encouraging the use of internal appeals procedures in cases of dismissal, I welcome and support it.
As my hon. Friends have said, many of the Bill's measures were originally proposed by the previous Government, who recognised that the delays caused by the case load of industrial tribunals have increased significantly in recent years—in some parts of the country, the backlog is unacceptable. It is time to deal with that problem. In many ways, the Bill is the product of lengthy consultation undertaken by Lord Lang when he was President of the Board of Trade. At the time, he could not have anticipated the additional work load that will inevitably be created as a result both of the United Kingdom becoming a signatory to the social chapter and of the new Government's legislative programme.
It matters not to me whether industrial tribunals are given another name. To call them "employment tribunals" may reflect the role that they now perform in dealing with employment rights disputes, rather than cases in which employees fought levies imposed under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Interestingly, the biggest increase in tribunal work has been in cases involving race and sex discrimination, and equal pay issues.
The Bill would introduce far more important measures, which would do much to deal with the logjam. The proposal that a tribunal chairman may sit with only one other member must ensure that a conflict of personality

between the chairman and the person before him is overcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in the belief that it is a pity that the Conservative proposal for the use of private arbitrators has been rejected. There are some excellent private arbitrators, and I do not believe that it is necessary for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to have a monopoly in resolving disputes.
I regret that the Government do not share my enthusiasm, and that of my hon. Friends, for private enterprise. Other measures proposed in a Green Paper issued in 1996 would also have been helpful. One must question why the Government do not support proposals to allow tribunals to dismiss a case during a substantive hearing if it becomes clear that the case will fail. One must also question why they do not allow the tribunal to award costs if a party has rejected a reasonable offer of settlement. The advantages of such positive measures would be less cost, the reduction of stress on employers and employees—which is of paramount importance—and the fact that petty cases would not burden the industrial tribunals system. Moreover, such proposals would enable intractable cases to be heard and dealt with more speedily.
Perhaps the most important measure in the Bill is the one that relates to the alternative means of settling disputes. Under the Bill, parties in unfair dismissal disputes will be able to opt for independent, binding arbitration, which is currently limited to collective disputes. Parties must be encouraged to consider how to settle disputes—tribunals cannot be the only option. Both sides should benefit from arbitration. If it is quicker, cheaper, more private and more informal than a tribunal hearing, it must be a valid option.

Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be if the Bill contained a provision under which a tribunal could refuse to hear a case unless the firm's internal procedures had been exhausted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), that when hon. Members want to intervene, they must rise in their place.

Mr. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about arbitration. Two parallel systems of justice could emerge. One would be arbitration—private, with no right of appeal—and the other public tribunals governed by a body of law and with the right of appeal. A situation could emerge in which no one would choose arbitration without the right of appeal against perverse decisions.
I broadly welcome the Bill, because the employment rights that it offers would at least go some way to alleviate some problems of employment law and the problems that we now face when we employ people. However, some of my concerns have not been dealt with, and I strongly advocate flexible arrangements to deal with the challenging future in employment.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I did not intend to speak on the Bill, but, having listened to the debate, I feel it necessary to make a small contribution and to declare


an interest as an employer with a small convenience store in Swansea, which has been in the family since the 1920s. Three generations of my family have owned the store, and, since I became a Member of Parliament in 1992, my sister has taken charge of the day-to-day running. We employ eight people. In the 1960s, when my father and grandfather ran the store as a family concern—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the "History of Private Business" Bill.

Mr. Evans: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important to stress what is happening with small businesses and explain that in the 1960s we did not employ anyone—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but this is a Third Reading debate. He should have made points on the background on Second Reading. On Third Reading, he must confine himself to the contents of the Bill, and that is what I want to hear.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to explain that I am an employer. We mainly employ part-timers and there is a large throughput of staff, some of whom come for only six or nine months, while others have been employed for more than 14 years and would be covered by unfair dismissal procedures. In the main, we have been extremely lucky in the people we have employed. However, we are a family business, not professionals, and the people we employ do not go through the stringent interview procedures that one might find in a larger business. Therefore, I am considering the prospect of a small family firm being taken to a tribunal, because of the Bill, by someone who claims to have been unfairly dismissed, although the firm thought the dismissal fair.
Our business is typical, and there are thousands of small convenience stores and small businesses. Many operate on the margins and would normally be one-man bands, but have taken on one or two people to help. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the stress for employees, but employers also face enormous stress. When we take people on, we worry that we might be taking on future problems and costs over and above those that we have already accrued by employing them. Obviously, we want to establish a procedure that will be fair to everyone. If employees who were unfairly dismissed could not seek redress from a tribunal it would be wrong, as employers could be become tyrannical and dismiss people without good cause. There has to be a procedure whereby employees are protected.

Mr. Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 13, which encourages the use of internal appeals as the first stage, is an important element in what he advocates, which is the chance for employees and employers to resolve disputes without recourse to a tribunal? Does he further agree that, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the clause does not go far enough because we need to entrench the idea that the use of an internal appeals procedure should be expected before one goes down the expensive and difficult route of a tribunal?

Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred to that.

I hope that when difficulties arise between employers and employees they can be resolved amicably and reasonably, but that will not always be possible. For all sorts of personal reasons, perhaps, they may simply not be compatible—something they might not at first have realised. In small business, small rows break out, almost like family rows or rows between neighbours. One of the worst things that Members of Parliament have to contend with are disputes between neighbours, some of which are insoluble.
In a small firm, when a dispute breaks out between employer and employee, often it cannot be solved internally. If the small business is very small, no internal device or procedure will be available. In my business, none would be. As the owner, I would be called on to deal with a problem, but it might have arisen between my sister and an employee. I suppose that I would have to adjudicate, but it would be extremely difficult to take sides between an employee and my sister. How could I give a vote of no confidence in the person I have put in charge of running my business? I should hate to go home at Christmas if that happened.

Mr. Gray: It is interesting to hear the history of the Evans family. Might my hon. Friend not take a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and get his mother-in-law to sort out such disputes?

Mr. Evans: I am in the happy, or unhappy, situation of not being able to draw on my mother-in-law to sort out my disputes. One needs someone who knows the business—someone who could be called on to give expert advice, but at reasonable cost. In the 1980s, my business made hardly any money. In some years, we made a loss and had to draw on the family to do extra hours, as we could not afford to pay overtime.
Insurance is a great thing and can save businesses extra money in the long run, but, as one lady told me this morning, a tremendous number of people do not even have home contents insurance; and it is not merely because they are taking a risk. In many cases, they cannot afford it—it can cost £200 or £300 a year. People running small family businesses in lean times will be tempted to cut costs. For example, their insurance might not cover internal disputes, but if a dispute arose and they sought legal advice, it would cost money. Either way, the small business loses and, in lean times, the employer has no choice.
Employers have to be properly represented, particularly as the employee has recourse to legal advice through legal aid. That seems unfair. While the business might not be making any money, I suspect that the owner would not be eligible to legal aid and would have to contest the case himself. It could come to a point where the employer was no longer concentrating on running his business, but thinking solely of the dispute, briefing himself, as busily as he could, as an amateur on the law and probably seeking advice from customers and business associates.

Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that when there is a dispute between employer and employee in a small business, it is inevitably the employer who compromises himself to deal with the problem in the way he sees fit, which may not be the most appropriate to himself, simply to overcome the problem of an employee


walking out or not doing the job properly? That is inherently unfair on the person running the business and putting in the time and money to ensure that other people are in gainful employment.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. If I were confronted with such a problem I could not afford to go to court. There are no two ways about it: I would have to compromise and cave in all down the line. I would have to employ someone I do not want or trust because he had recourse to funding through the taxpayer—I would pay for him, but could not afford to pay for myself. The dispute would not be solved, but would fester for years. We must strike a balance.
The Bill goes some way to providing for disputes to be resolved internally—internal solutions should be exhausted before having recourse to law—but there must be protection for the employer. The balance has shifted too far one way for small businesses.
I am vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau, so I have contacts with many small businesses, in which I have been interested since I was elected to the House. In the 1980s, dynamic small firms took on more people and helped the economy to grow. We must hope that they take on more people in the 1990s to achieve a booming and growing economy. We cannot rely as much on industries that employ 10,000 and 15,000 as we did in the past. British Aerospace operates in my constituency, and its personnel department has a procedure for sorting out internal disputes, but my business does not have a personnel department other than my sister, who is a one-man personnel department.

Mr. Fraser: I am a director of the Small Business Bureau. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should discuss those issues with the SBB, because it leads the field in understanding employment rights in small businesses and is recognised across the country for that? Does he also agree that we should be worse off if the Government did not consult it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those remarks stray beyond the compass of the Bill. I must ask the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to stick to the terms of the Bill, which is receiving its Third Reading.

Mr. Evans: I shall not address the point, other than to say that the Small Business Bureau considers employment protection as well as protection of employers.
Organisations such as the Small Business Bureau, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry have small business departments because they recognise the importance of small businesses, want to strike the correct balance, and want employees to have the right protection. They do not want to shift the balance against employees.
I do not want the law to be altered in such a way that employers would be deterred from taking the risk of employing someone. The new deal involves taking on people who have been unemployed for more than six months. The Government are asking employers to have faith in them and in the unemployed, especially the young

unemployed aged between 18 and 24 who have had difficulty getting jobs, and to take them on and keep them on.
We do not want people to be taken on for only six months, only to be foisted back on the unemployment register; that would be useless. We want them to be employed for more than six months, or for more than two years, which is the point at which employment rights protection comes in, to break the cycle.
We do not want businesses to be deterred from taking people on. We want small businesses to get involved in the new deal and to take people on with a subsidy of £60 a week, but they will be cautious if they think that employment disputes might involve thousands of pounds in compensation and legal costs.
I welcome the Bill and wish it well, but the Government should consider fresh measures that would protect employers and employees. Striking the right balance would ensure that small businesses could take on far more people.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Bill enjoys cross-party support and there are a number of enthusiasts for it, but it contains defects. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to four of them.
First, the Bill does not require parties to a dispute to exhaust other avenues before going to the tribunal. Clause 13 allows the tribunal to reduce the award to the successful party if other avenues have not been exhausted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have heard what I said earlier. To stay in order during a Third Reading debate, hon. Members must refer to what is in the Bill, not what they would have liked to be in it. Such matters are dealt with on Second Reading. I want to hear only the hon. Gentleman's views on what is in the Bill.

Mr. Swayne: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall draw my remarks to a swift close.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall do my level best to keep within your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on taking the Bill so far on behalf of Lord Archer of Sandwell. It is a great honour to take a private Member's Bill so far, and he is a tantalisingly short distance from achieving Third Reading.
The Bill has been discussed against a background of excellent industrial relations over the past few years and extraordinarily successful growth in employment in western Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, perhaps only America has a better industrial relations scene.
I have been an employer and I am concerned about employers' attitude to tribunals. I do not want to rake over what I said on Second Reading, but it is vital that hon. Members understand that many employers do not think that taking a case to the tribunal is worth the candle. Many cases are resolved out of court or before the tribunal sits, often to the disadvantage of the company.


I shall not discuss the cases that I discussed last week, but I have received a lot of comment on them. I echo strongly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale: employers are put off going to the tribunal for reasons other than legal costs. Tribunals began as a quick, cheap and easy way for lay members to resolve disputes. Sadly, lawyers have become more involved in recent years. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is safely in China as a member of a parliamentary delegation, so I can be rude about lawyers, who are costly and are driving out the lay element in tribunals.
Lay members do not often contribute much to tribunals. Unions hire highly skilled lawyers to represent the plaintiff, and employers, if they go to the tribunal, are forced to take expensive legal advice. It is regrettable that we have gone a long way from the concept of lay people using common sense to sort out disputes quickly. The process has become horrendously lengthy since lawyers became involved and there are six-month delays, which are exactly what we do not want.
I strongly support the Bill's aim of speeding up the process and resolving disputes in a reasonable time, but I am worried that an even greater burden of proof will be placed on employers. That will also have a negative effect, because employers will be cynical and throw in the towel early. People will not want to take on labour, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), a splendid small business man from Swansea, who spoke for thousands of small business people who want to take on labour.
Last week, I talked to a plumber in Ellesmere who would like to take on another employee, because he has the work, but he is put off by the legislation, the form filling and the honor—in a small town—of possibly having to dismiss and get into a legal tangle with someone whom he knows well. That is a real danger, and I hope that Ministers are listening carefully.

Mr. Evans: Some people think that insurance is the answer, but, even if small business could afford the insurance premiums, the problem is that insurance companies can start to dictate the employment rights offered. I say that as someone who has experience of fire insurance for business. The insurance people come in and dictate to the business people what has to be done before they are even allowed to pay the insurance premiums. What does my hon. Friend think about the dictates of the insurance companies on employment rights?

Mr. Paterson: That is a most interesting intervention, because such behaviour by insurance companies would run counter to what we are all trying to achieve-the smoothest possible industrial relations with the minimum of interference from outside. It would be a most retrograde development if insurance companies could lay down the conditions on which an employee could be taken on. It would be yet another horrific psychological barrier to the plumber who has enough business to take on an assistant. As well as conforming to the legislation, the plumber would have to undertake not to infringe numerous insurance documents; that would be a worrying development.
I am concerned that, at Third Reading, the Bill still does not address the inconsistencies of tribunal decisions. It is bizarre, for instance, that holiday pay is a matter for

industrial tribunals in Scotland but not in England. There is not an employee in the country who is not involved in discussions on holiday pay. That is only one of the flagrant and gross inconsistencies. I am concerned that the Bill, which is intended to speed matters up, may lead to even more inconsistencies in judgments. Nothing in the Bill provides for a review mechanism to ensure that judgments are kept on track. I could cite numerous other instances in which, because of the sheer number of cases, judgments are taking different directions in different parts of the country, according to the decisions of individual tribunals.

Mr. Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that that problem is likely to be exacerbated by clause 3, which will increase the number of occasions on which a decision is taken by only one person, instead of three, which is more likely to balance out any individual idiosyncrasies? Judgments made by one person could be more arbitrary and subject to his or her personal characteristics or mood.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has heard that argument deployed already in an earlier speech.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be most careful in how I reply.
The Bill, in introducing decision making by individual chairmen, will exacerbate the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentions. Without a review mechanism, the House will soon have to revisit the question.
My final, short point is that, in my experience, we have very good industrial relations, but many people who serve on industrial tribunals are out of date. People might accuse me of agism—

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that with age comes not only experience but wisdom. Those assets are much needed on industrial tribunals.

Mr. Paterson: I have no intention of casting aspersions on my hon. Friend's mother-in-law. However, many people on tribunals come from another age. They are elderly trade union officials nearing retirement, or ex-personnel managers, and they pick up £150 a day for their time. Not enough young people serve on tribunals who could bring their current experience to bear. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh, but I have no intention of attacking mothers-in-law or members of their generation who give their time. The Bill should contain provisions to attract younger people, with contemporary experience of how good our industrial relations now are.
With those reservations, I accept that the gist of the Bill is in the right direction and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth on bringing it forward.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Last week, I had the honour and privilege of speaking from the Front Bench on the Bill. I thought that that was the highest honour I would achieve and that I could then relax and permanently retire to the Back Benches. Unfortunately, either because of the quality of my performance or


because of a shortage of colleagues who were prepared to do a stint on a Friday, I find myself speaking from the Front Bench yet again. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will bear with me for a second time for another modest contribution.

Mr. David Jamieson: Long overdue.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that Opposition Members entirely agree with the Government Whip.
The raison d'etre for Members of Parliament is to pass laws. We are law makers and that is the task that we are expected to perform. It is the main, if not the only, reason we are here. We are certainly well practised in the task. Since 1979, we have passed 220,000 pages of law—just short of a quarter of a million. We are clearly becoming more efficient at passing laws, because we have passed 112 volumes of statute law since 1945, compared with fewer than 300 volumes in the previous 235 years. We are speeding up making laws and we are passing more and more pages of law. Like a sausage machine, the procedure is becoming more automated and working faster and faster—with the possible exception of this Bill.
Do all those laws make things better? Do they make people's lives easier or more difficult? The Opposition support the Bill because we believe that it will make things better for people and because it has a deregulatory flavour. That deregulatory initiative was started by us when we were in government. The Bill's general thrust is to reduce bureaucracy in the resolution of disputes between employers and employees.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Steen: If my right hon. Friend insists.

Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. Friend. Is my hon. Friend arguing that, when a measure is essentially deregulatory, it is likely to be beneficial to people, and that the converse applies—if regulation, intervention, bureaucracy or the activities of politicians or Governments are increased, the measure is likely not to be beneficial?

Mr. Steen: That was first intervention that I have taken from my right hon. Friend, and it was spot on; he is known always to hit the bull's-eye. Legislation should be passed to reduce bureaucracy and administrative delay and to make life more efficient, more constructive, easier and happier.
There is a major difference between the Government and us in theory, although it can be seen in practice as well. The Government and their supporters tend to believe that passing more laws will solve problems; our experience is that it creates more problems. Constituents ask for laws to solve one problem, but that often creates others.
We welcome the Bill because we believe that it will reduce pressure on employers and employees to seek the help of the courts or of what are to be called employment tribunals. It tries to divert disputes between employees

and employers from formal regulatory measures to informal procedures in companies or at arbitration. That will reduce bureaucracy, rules and regulations and consequential problems. I therefore support the thrust of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
All developed societies have grievance procedures. There has always been a remedy in law for when employee-employer relationships go wrong. Until just after the second world war, going to court was the way to do it. That was expensive, daunting and often disadvantageous to employees in seeking future employment and references.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who gave us a grand tour, with certain restrictions, on the issues that the Bill addresses. I am grateful to him for giving us his professional assessment of the effect of the Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who made some perceptive interjections, as did my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), whose speech was somewhat truncated.
Tribunals safeguard the rights of employees. Although the majority of employers are good, there will always be a minority who take advantage of their employees. There is a converse to that. We always talk about the rights of employees. We should talk about the rights and duties not only of employees but of employers; it works both ways. It is always presumed that the employee is disadvantaged. Having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I think that some employers may be disadvantaged. We must keep a balance in employment law by realising that it is not always the employer who is at fault.
Labour Members will be interested in these figures: in 1974, 14,750,000 working days were lost to strikes; in 1996, there were only 1,303,000. Collective relations have dramatically improved over those 22 years. There will always be problems between individual employees and employers. The increasing recognition of individual rights has increased the number of applications to industrial tribunals. I stress the word "rights", because it is not individual responsibilities but individual rights that have led to the 90,000 applications a year to industrial tribunals. There is no converse right for employers to go to industrial tribunals to complain about their employees. It is only one way, as if employees are the only ones who can be disadvantaged.
It was the growth in the number of applications and the ensuing backlog of cases that prompted our Government to examine the matter and to produce the broad and enlightened approach before the House. That is the right approach. I pay tribute to this Government for picking up the ball and running with it, and making one or two alterations to give it their own distinctive flavour. There are differences between today's Bill and the draft Bill published in 1996, such as the refusal to allow for private, independent arbitration. Instead, the scheme is wholly in the hands of the Government-run Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The Government think that that will be an improvement; the Opposition think that the opportunity for private arbitration would have been better.
In its fundamental principles, this Bill is the same as the draft Bill published by the previous Government. Throughout history, we have seen invaders tearing down


existing religious buildings, replacing them with their own places of worship on the same site and proudly proclaiming those as their temples and churches. So, too, has the Labour party, in conquering the electorate last May, proudly claimed this Bill as its own. In fact, it was largely we, the vanquished, who designed it. We pay tribute to the conqueror, but it would be nice if the conqueror would recognise in his winding-up speech that it is essentially our church.
The Bill is in three parts: it reforms the procedure of industrial tribunals, which will be known as employment tribunals; it legislates for an alternative methods of settling disputes between employer and employees; and it will ensure that internal appeal procedures are more widely used. It would not be appropriate to list all the clauses, as has been done before. We all know what they are. As there is other business, I do not want go through them in detail.
The Bill is largely based on proposals drawn up and sent for consultation by our Government. It will improve the methods by which grievances between employers and employees can be settled. We believe that the Bill could have been improved. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was to have explained how, and we look forward to hearing him on another occasion. We should have liked to maintain the freedom of choice for parties to go a private, independent arbitrator, but that aspect will be run by the public sector.
Conservative Members tabled several amendments that illustrated the quality of those Members. We were all greatly impressed today by the quality of their contributions. I have not often sat on the Front Bench; on the Back Benches one does not listen in the same way. The quality of their speeches, especially those of the newer Members, was first rate—that does not necessarily mean the more youthful Members, but it certainly applies to the newer ones.

Mr. David Maclean: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Steen: I give way to one of the older Members.

Mr. Maclean: On behalf of those of us on the Back Benches, may I note the quality of the speech that we have been delighted to hear from the Front Bench?

Mr. Steen: That was clearly an interjection by a politician. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
We are disappointed that the Government did not feel able to improve the Bill in the way we suggested. As a dispassionate observer, I thought that certain amendments would have improved the Bill, particularly those concerning the burden of proof, which should be neutral. Perhaps an annexure or appendix could be added to the Bill to deal with some of the matters raised in unsuccessful amendments.
In my experience of the House, Bills discussed on the Floor of the House get shorter, while powers in them are dealt with by statutory instrument and by codes of conduct initiated elsewhere. Perhaps a code of conduct or method of practice could be attached to the Bill to deal with the content of certain amendments. For example, we sought to ensure that, where a case was decided by written evidence alone, there would be a greater safeguard to ensure that

both sides had received independent and competent advice on the consequence of not giving oral evidence. In addition, we sought to provide a safeguard so that if a lay member of a tribunal failed to attend the tribunal at any stage, the hearing could go ahead even without permission from all parties. Could that be attached to the Bill?
The role played by legal officers was mentioned. The relevant Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is not here today. There are so many Ministers that the Government can churn them out, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) is in his place. He may be aware that the Minister took seriously our concerns about arbitration and legal officers. Perhaps he could touch on that point when he winds up.
The House was sorry that we did not reach amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for New Forest, West and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred. We must make it more attractive for an employee to settle within the company's disputes procedure.
Bearing in mind the fact that it costs nothing for an employee to go to an industrial tribunal, but it costs time and money for an employer to set up a case in a tribunal or in arbitration, the Bill should provide greater incentives for the employee and so encourage the deregulatory process. Is there a way to provide an increased incentive for the employee to use the company's own internal procedure?

Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is a requirement to exhaust internal procedures before a tribunal, that in itself gives significant impetus to the improvement and development of firms' own internal procedures?

Mr. Steen: Clearly, my hon. Friend is making up for the brevity of his speech, and the Government would do well to listen to him.
We like the Bill. You are changing the name from industrial to employment tribunals and you are trying to have a fast track.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time, that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Steen: Nothing gives me greater pleasure than addressing the Chair when you are in it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I got carried away with the force of the argument and addressed it to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, who looked as enthralled as I was.
The thrust of the Bill is to reduce bureaucracy and to speed up the process, and the process may be speeded up if there are more arbitration agreements and more employment tribunals. However, the best way to reduce the number of disputes coming into the arena is to encourage the procedures set up by the Bill. We want to encourage good industrial relations. If there was an incentive for an employee to do everything he could to settle his dispute within the company system—and if he were told that he might not get more money by going to arbitration or an employment tribunal—that would be welcome.
We do not want increasing conflicts procedures. We want a happier, reformed country where employees and employers work more happily together. The employee must be encouraged not to take his dispute to a public arena, paid for by legal aid or by his union, where the employer has to fork out so much money that he settles—a sort of blackmail.
Does the hon. Member for Lewisham, West have a device up his sleeve whereby some pressure could be put on employees to realise that they might not get the best deal by going to a tribunal? Perhaps awarding costs against unsuccessful employees might provide that pressure. We need a stick-and-carrot approach. Using the company's internal procedures may well be to the employee's financial advantage.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Wentworth golf club spanking case, in which an employee—entirely incorrectly—accused her employer of pinning her against a filing cabinet and spanking her. The case went on for eight months at a tribunal, and damaged the interests of Wentworth golf club. In the end, it was proved that she only did it to bring pressure to bear on the golf club to improve her conditions of employment.

Mr. Steen: I do not know the details of this case as well as my hon. Friend does. I hope that the case has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who is sitting on the Government Benches. There are not many of these cases, but the media love them. They suggest that there must be an encouragement for employees and employers to settle their differences. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West is a man of experience and wisdom, and he may have some way of including this legitimate concern in the Bill.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has knowledge of small business. Does he accept that most cases are settled internally and that only a small number require the expensive recourse to law and tribunals?

Mr. Steen: That is only partly correct, because 90,000 cases are still waiting, although I am sure that many differences are dealt with. This country has reached the stage where everybody talks about disputes and rights and we are becoming like the United States, where everybody complains. We have to be careful to ensure that our legislation does not encourage that.

Mr. Gray: I want only to correct an error that I made in my earlier intervention: it was not the Wentworth golf club—I was confused by the title of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill; it was the Bishop's Stortford golf club.

Mr. Steen: That puts a very different complexion on the whole matter.
It is about time that I started to wind up my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] All good things come to an end. The relationship between an employer and an employee can be difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley explained the difficulties affecting his small family-run business and all that goes on there with members of his family, full-timers and part-timers,

and the various problems which arise—in fact, it might make a good soap opera. It is good to know that, in spite of all those difficulties, he has prospered, and we believe that his company will go from strength to strength, especially if he does not have too much to do with it.
In any civilised society, it is important that there is an effective system of hearing and satisfying grievances. The system of industrial tribunals has played and continues to play an extremely valuable role in protecting the rights of employees and allowing grievances to be heard and, where appropriate, redress to be given. None the less, the system is under great strain because of the sheer volume of applications, which are largely the product of the system's success. It is for that reason that the Conservatives support the broad thrust of the Bill, which originates from the draft Bill published under the previous Government.
We support the Bill because it seeks to make industrial tribunals more effective and to encourage more people to use arbitration as a less costly, less time-consuming and less confrontational approach towards resolving problems. To a certain extent, the Bill is reminiscent of the previous Government's approach to reconciliation in divorce cases. There is a certain irony in our legislating for a quicker, cheaper and less formal way to remove the burden from the system of tribunals, because they were introduced as a means of relieving the pressure on the courts. We hope that we shall not in future have to devise a system of removing the pressure on the system of voluntary arbitration.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): indicated assent.

Mr. Steen: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman supports that approach. We have to ensure that, every few years, we do not have to pass more laws to deal with the laws we got wrong before.
There is an additional procedure outlined in the Bill, but we must avoid creating a problem similar to that which arises when a dual carriageway is built—the assumption then being that traffic will start to flow more easily. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I can see by your expression that it would be wise to do so for only a moment—in south Devon we keep straightening the roads and getting rid of the hedges; every time we do so, more cars go faster down the roads, so we build ever-larger car parks for those arriving at the end of their journey. If, in the Bill, we provide two or three ways of dealing with disputes, we are in danger of putting three times as much traffic down the routes. I would call it the "Devon road-straightening principle" and I ask the Government not to go down that route. It is expensive and it does not produce better results.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his superb review of the subject. I am afraid that he is right: when, in the last century, it was found that, for the uses of the ordinary consumer, the High Court was too complicated, the county court was introduced; then in the 20th century it was found that the county court was too complicated and the small claims court was introduced. Is there not always a tendency for such procedures to become hardened in the arteries? My hon. Friend's anxiety about


the roads in Devon, when viewed in parallel with the history of those judicial systems, is all too plainly justified.

Mr. Steen: It is a delight to have a question from the Whip; he was on the Front Bench and suddenly disappeared, only to reappear two Benches back. More important, my hon. Friend is a lawyer of great distinction and is well known for his assiduous understanding of the legal process. To hear a former Minister and a Whip make a quality intervention like that is a delight for us all, and his question should make us all aware of the issue of how to prevent more people from going down a road, once it has been opened.
There is a difficult balance to be struck, because the Bill opens a way that we want to stop people from using. The only way to do that is by taking a stick-and-carrot approach and by telling people that, if they go down that route, there might be stick; but that, if they try to resolve the dispute within their own system, there is a carrot. That is an important principle and the fact that that is its purpose should be somehow attached to the Bill. I do not say that as an idle throwaway point.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Steen: No, certainly not. Currently in the pipeline are issues relating to parental leave, the working time directive, the minimum wage and a White Paper that might remove the two-year rule for eligibility to apply to a tribunal for wrongful dismissal. There will be an enormous amount of extra traffic, which is why we are a hostage to fortune. The Conservatives introduced the Bill as a deregulatory measure and the present Government may find that it is a good vehicle to enable them to handle not only matters arising as a result of their legislation, but those emerging from legislation from Europe. Although I have a neutral stance on Europe in terms of more rules and regulations—

Mr. Forth: What?

Mr. Steen: I have quite a neutral stance on more rules and regulations, except those that impinge on our way of life and result in more and more bureaucracy, which, far from being good, means that more rules are needed to cope with the new bureaucracy, especially when it comes from Brussels.
Although one welcomes the Bill, there are all sorts of dangerous pitfalls lurking in the undergrowth. Conservative Members will watch closely the progress and the implementation of the Bill. We want to ensure that it is the fast track and the track envisaged by the previous Government, rather than merely an overspill for more and more grievance proceedings. We also want to ensure that the procedure remains informal and that it does not take on the legalistic characteristics of industrial tribunals.
As I near the end of this marathon—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Surely not."] I shall not be drawn. As I near the end, I should acknowledge that industrial tribunals do an essential job and play a vital role in maintaining good industrial relations, but there is a backlog and their work load will increase, thanks to the policies pursued by the

Labour Government and, to some extent, the new legislation from Europe. The Government must evaluate the implementation of the new system to ensure that it provides the promised improvements. Conservative Members earnestly hope that it does deliver those improvements, and we want to see the legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. Finally, I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to wind up for the official Opposition, the Conservative party, in this way.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I convey to the House the apologies of my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Minister of State, who, unfortunately, was called away on unavoidable business. Instead of delaying the Bill, we decided to proceed with it this morning, in the hope that we can give it the Third Reading that it richly merits—although there were moments during the speech by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) when I wondered whether that was likely to happen.
We have had several contributions by Conservative Members, principally by the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Totnes. We also had a speech by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), which contained one of the most meteoric ascents of the learning curve that we have witnessed in the House. It is also quite a shock to the Chair for the Chair to make a ruling of which people take notice.
Most hon. Members who spoke were principally concerned about the actual or potential threat that some of the provisions in the Bill might present to small businesses. There are always problems with small businesses, deriving from a structural problem. People tend to go into small business because they can do one thing very well. They then discover that they need to be able to do two, three, four or five other things before they can put the business in a condition to allow them to do what they do really well. Personnel management and financial control are among the skills that they need to master.
The purpose of the Bill is not to make the lives of small business people more difficult. To listen to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley on occasion, one would assume that no one was ever dismissed in this world without going to an industrial tribunal, yet, in a later intervention, he pointed out that the vast majority of dismissals or departures were perfectly reasonable and amicable, if not welcome, and that only a minority of cases attracted the attention of industrial tribunals.
However, it is obvious from Conservative Members' contributions that the current system is in urgent need of review, that it is grinding to a halt, that there are defects in the legislation under which it is administered and that a review of some kind is long overdue.
Echoed by other hon. Members, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that, sometimes, confronted with the logistical complexity of dealing with employment tribunals, people—especially employers—prefer to concede a case than to defend it, although they might have


a good case. That is a serious matter. One can give people rights, but if the procedures place an unbearable burden on them, so that it becomes practically impossible to enforce those rights, the rights are valueless. The Government are keenly aware that we need to give people the opportunity to enforce those rights. A large part of the Bill is designed to ensure that they can.
In essence, the Bill simplifies procedures, to give tribunals a greater range of discretion. It seeks to promote conciliation, so that there is no need to have recourse to tribunals.
The hon. Member for Totnes wanted at least a show of gratitude from us for the Bill's antecedents, and I willingly and unreservedly give it. The measure attracts widespread support, principally because most of its provisions are common sense. I just mention a couple of the reservations that were most frequently expressed by Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale expressed reservations about the chairman sitting alone, or with one other member. The Bill provides for the chairman to sit with one other member, but only when all the parties who are present or represented at the hearing agree to it. It is the conciliatory approach again—nothing will be forced on people. It is envisaged that that provision will be used only rarely, but, when it is used, it will facilitate swift resolution of cases and prevent unnecessary and costly delays, which is one of the principal purposes of the measure.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that some amendments were accepted in the Lords, where the Bill was considered at length and in detail. In fact, the majority of the amendments tabled in the Lords were accepted and incorporated into the Bill.
Conservative Members generally said that the Bill was capable of improvement. I very much doubt whether there is a single piece of legislation that has ever passed through the House—or ever will—that could be held to be perfect in all elements, or which hon. Members from any part of the House could not see an opportunity to improve.

Mr. Evans: Some are better than others.

Mr. Dowd: I am informed that some are better than others. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not referring to the legislation that set up the Child Support Agency.
Issues such as employment tribunals and all the matters relating to employment law need, perforce, to remain permanently under review. It will always be necessary to ensure that these things are working; that they are working in the way that Parliament wanted them to work; that they are working for the benefit of the people for whom they were designed.
One of the hallmarks of the present Government, which we have attempted to impress on the House since May 1997, is that we are not doctrinaire or dogmatic in that sense. Our philosophy is best encapsulated in the idea that what counts is what works. I hope that we shall be able to get the Bill speedily on to the statute book and into operation. Obviously, guidance will be provided as to interpretation and performance, but no Government

Department simply sends a Bill out into the world with no regard as to what happens. The Bill will be constantly monitored to see whether it needs to be fine-tuned.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Totnes made: sometimes, one solves one problem and is left with a different problem to tackle. As a general proposition, as long as one's secondary problem is less than one's primary problem, at least one is making progress. I very much doubt whether there is a perfect solution in these matters, but they will remain under constant review.

Mr. Steen: The Minister may well be coming to this point, in which case perhaps he will forgive me for raising it. My hon. Friends and I suggested that we should give the employee an incentive not to use the new system. Might that be part of an appendix, an annexure or a working practice note attached to the Bill?

Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in the carrot-and-stick section of his speech. Provision already exists for costs to be awarded when a party acts frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing, conducting, proceeding with or concluding proceedings, such as when the party is advised that they have no case, yet they insist on going ahead with it. The penalties already exist—the stick is already there.
However, the one thing that we were keen to do in the Bill, as is evidenced by clause 13, was to ensure that there are more informal ways of promoting solutions by the quickest possible route. We are equally convinced that people should obtain advice before agreeing to a determination on written evidence. Under the Bill, people do not surrender their rights by agreeing to a determination, but the Government would encourage people to ensure that they understand, and obtain the advice that they need, before proceeding.
In summary, the Bill was introduced at the other end of the building by Lord Archer of Sandwell.

Mr. Evans: As I suspect that this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has appeared at the Dispatch Box, I should like to say on behalf of Conservative Members, how grateful we are for the courtesy and good grace with which he has responded to the debate, standing in for the Minister of State. The latter's loss is our gain, because at least we can understand the hon. Gentleman's response, which has not always been case with the Minister of State. We wish the hon. Gentleman all the best in the forthcoming reshuffle. I am sure that the competent way in which he has handled today's proceedings will not be lost on his party.

Mr. Dowd: I am grateful for those kind remarks—although I am not sure whether they are accurate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has a way of making people understand what he means, whether verbally or otherwise.
This measure was introduced in the other place by Lord Archer of Sandwell. We are grateful for the opportunity that it presents to discuss these important matters. The Bill was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who has been pursuing me in my normal capacity, to which I shall return later this afternoon, to ensure that the Bill makes every progress. There was considerable debate on the


legislation in the other place. During 10 hours of debate, 89 amendments were submitted, of which about 50 were accepted.
The legislation puts right several defects in current law. For example, jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunals to hear appeals in cases of breach of contract was removed inadvertently by consolidation legislation introduced by the previous Government. There is now a huge backlog of such cases and, unless this legislation makes early progress, they will have to go to the High Court for determination—and I am sure that everyone accepts that that is not a sensible way to deal with those matters.
The Report and Third Reading debates have taken longer than perhaps many hon. Members anticipated, but the time has not been wasted. We have rehearsed several important arguments and identified the germs of a quite reasonable debate that should take place on a range of other issues, including the plight of small business and the role of the courts. However, I must admit that I am always slightly skeptical—to put it mildly—when lawyers tell me that there are too many laws and too many courts.
I sincerely hope that the House will make progress with the measure and give it a Third Reading. I hope that all hon. Members will support the provisions as a positive contribution to the efficient and effective performance of employment tribunals, not simply for the benefit of public administration but, more particularly, for the rights of those who will benefit from them.

Mr. John Healey: With the leave of the House, I rise to wind up the debate on Third Reading. I am pleased—not to mention rather relieved—to reach this point in proceedings. I welcome the contributions made this morning, in particular that of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). He made the most of his reappearance on the Front Bench, and I enjoyed his speech almost as much as his colleagues did. I also welcome the appearance of the Lord Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). He is often on the Front Bench on a Friday morning, so it was nice that he was given a speaking part today.
The support that many hon. Members have offered the Bill this morning suggests that we should see it safely through its Third Reading later today. I believe that it will become the first private Member's Bill to reach the statute book in this Parliament. As the promoter of the Bill in the House, I am proud to have played a small part in that process. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who has done the lion's share of the work in steering the Bill safely through to this stage. He led the Bill through the other place with painstaking care, skill and, at times, patience. He led it through 10 hours of debate and 86 amendments, 49 of which were accepted. Their lordships set out to make a good Bill better, and they succeeded. The measure has received wide-ranging support from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. There was detailed pre-parliamentary consultation on the Bill, which has now received lengthy legislative scrutiny.
I shall now attempt to deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate this morning. I shall start with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
I endorse his comment—I am sure that the view is also shared by my colleagues—that tribunals are an important and valuable way of settling employment disputes. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) expressed concern about the composition of tribunals. Earlier this month, the Minister of State announced a freeze on new appointments to industrial tribunals. There is wide on-going consultation about how we may broaden the composition of tribunals. If the hon. Gentleman wants to inject fresh and youthful vigour into tribunals, I suggest that he submits his views as part of the consultation process. I am certain that the Minister will welcome his ideas about that process.

Mr. Evans: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that as many people as possible know about the consultation exercise? How will he ensure that that information reaches the younger people whom we are seeking to attract to tribunals?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not read the same newspapers and magazines as I do. If he did, he would have seen that the press release was picked up quite widely. If he would like to have details of the consultees to the process, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to provide that list.
The more substantial point about burden of proof cropped up this time last week on Report, and was referred to by the hon. Members for Totnes and for North Wiltshire. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) articulated a misconception that was picked up by some other Conservative Members. Clause 6 does nothing to change the burden of proof at industrial tribunals. The Bill is not a part of what Conservative Members have described as the relentless change in the balance of the burden of proof within the industrial tribunal system. Clause 6 simply restates the present legal position. Clause 6(3)—which is probably attracting all the attention—for the purposes of clarity, restates the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which is in turn a restatement of the Trade Union Act 1984, which the previous Conservative Government introduced 14 years ago.
Another important misconception is connected with the burden of proof, which the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and for North Wiltshire perpetuated this morning. The burden of proof may be better described as the responsibility for proof. It does not presume or imply any judgment of guilt before the hearing: it is simply a question of which party is in the best position to provide the information that the tribunal requires in order to settle a dispute over facts.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I addressed that point by way of intervention, I referred to the interlink between this legislation and the National Minimum Wage Bill, which the House passed recently. That legislation is relevant to this Bill. Under that legislation, if the employer does not provide evidence that an employee has been paid the minimum wage, an offence is automatically deemed to have been committed. It does not matter whether the records have been destroyed by a fire, the millennium computer bug, or whatever. Therefore, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is slightly


wrong. I accept what he says about this legislation, but he must recognise that it links with other legislation already passed by Parliament.

Mr. Healey: We are discussing the Bill as it stands on Third Reading, so I shall not be tempted into an argument about the National Minimum Wage Bill. This legislation plays no part in the assertion that there has been a systematic change in the burden of proof.
Another substatial point raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire related to private arbitration, a point picked up by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who I am glad to see is back in the Chamber. The Bill does not prevent an employer and an employee from going to private arbitration under their own auspices. If they choose to do so, that is fine, but the Government are not convinced that where individuals choose to take arbitration, they should relinquish their statutory rights to take the case to tribunal other than when they use arbitration overseen and quality-assured by ACAS.
We are dealing with fundamental rights. Losing one's job is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. Giving up one's right to have one's case heard by a tribunal should not be taken lightly. If one gives up that right in favour of an alternative form of dispute resolution, it is important that sufficient safeguards are built in. That is what the Bill does. Freelance private arbitration could not do that.

Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the great ogre of the industrial tribunal remains behind the case, there is little point in private arbitration? If the private arbitration goes against either the employer or the employee, either side can have recourse to an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Healey: That is entirely a matter for the parties concerned. The Bill seeks to encourage people to use arbitration as an alternative to the industrial tribunal hearing, and, to do that, we want to make sure that the arbitration is properly founded and overseen by ACAS.
I should like to make two further specific points—I am getting signs that I should wind up, but these are important points that have not been properly answered and require a response. First, on the question of the chairman sitting alone, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale painted a picture of a dramatic extension of that provision under clause 3. The impact of the Bill will be only a limited extension of the practice of the chairman sitting alone. That will occur when the case covers technical jurisdictions, such as the right to statutory redundancy payment. If a case hinges on a point of law rather than on disputed facts, there is a strong argument that a tribunal chairman sitting alone is competent to do so.
The hon. Gentleman raised the concern directly from a constituent that there may be a personality problem between a tribunal chairman and a plaintiff. Safeguards are already built into the Employment Rights Act 1996. In deciding whether to sit alone and hear a case, the first point that the chairman must take into account is the view of the parties involved.

Mr. Collins: In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was brought to me by a constituent,

the personality clash was not identified before the constituent was asked whether he was happy for the chairman to sit alone. It emerged afterwards. In the course of the proceedings, it became clear that the chairman and my constituent could not discuss matters rationally, as my constituent described it. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, under the Bill, as under existing legislation, once the plaintiff has conceded that the chairman can sit alone or with one other, he cannot subsequently retract that if, during the hearing of evidence, he regrets that decision. That is why we must be careful not to extend the provisions more than would be sensible.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman again makes the point that he made earlier.
I move on to the comments on clause 13. The Bill is designed to encourage the greater use of internal appeal procedures. Listening to Opposition Members, I believe that it is clear that they do not appreciate that the operation of internal appeal procedures requires persuasion on both sides. Such procedures do not exist in many companies at present, and the Bill will help the process of establishing them. The purpose is to encourage—not to compel—people to use those procedures.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think, was concerned that the balance of penalty was out of kilter under clause 13. The penalty paid by the employee and the employer is identical. There is the possibility of two weeks' salary being added to or deducted from the compensation awarded, if the internal appeal procedures are not pursued. If anything, that is a more punitive sanction for the employee than for the employer in most cases.

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Healey: I must press on, as both sides of the House are keen for me to make progress.
The Bill brings modest rather than radical reform to employment tribunals. It makes a good service even better.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I raised a point in debate that has not been answered by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) or by the hon. Gentleman. It related to the concept that, for small and possibly also medium-sized firms, there should be cap on the amount for which they might be liable in an individual case. I was referring to the amendment proposed in clause 14, to section 117(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the possibility that a cap could be imposed in the same clause. Will the hon. Gentleman please answer that point?

Mr. Healey: That is beyond the scope of the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should make representations to the Minister of State, who is preparing a White Paper on fairness at work, which could well cover such issues. That would be the appropriate context in which to raise the matter.
Since they were set up by the Industrial Training Act 1964, tribunals have had their jurisdictions and their work load increased year by year. They now have jurisdiction


to deal with 60 separate employment matters such as protection from discrimination on grounds of sex, race or disability, prohibition of involvement in running employment agencies, and the right to time off for public duties. Tribunals deal with almost 90,000 applications each year, a total set to rise to 109,000 by 2000.
The Bill is timely. It will help the employment Tribunal Service to gear up to deal with the delays that remain in the system, despite the best efforts of tribunal staff and members, and it will help the service to gear up to deal with the jurisdictions in prospect, which the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, under the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the equalisation of rights of part-timers and legislation that will flow from the parental leave directive.
The Bill has three purposes. The first is to remove unnecessary inflexibilities in the system for dealing with disputes, by streamlining the tribunal procedures. The second is to encourage more disputes to be settled voluntarily or with the help of a third party, by promoting greater use of internal company procedures, by extending the role of the conciliation officer to cover redundancy payment claims, and by allowing employment experts other than lawyers to give advice on compromise agreements—a measure which the hon. Member for North Shropshire will no doubt welcome.
The third purpose of the Bill is to offer a less formal alternative method of resolving unfair dismissal disputes, which were half the total cases disposed of by tribunals in 1995–96.

Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: I must press on.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would like to hear what I am about to say. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank him for the way in which he has conducted himself in this matter, for the way in which he has presented the Bill to Parliament, and for the good will and time that he has given to discussing with us various problems that we have had with the Bill. I wish it well.

Mr. Healey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks, although I feel that I am under pressure from both sides.
In conclusion, I know from my working experience before entering the House—and it has been confirmed since, with my constituency case work—that the changes in the Bill are needed, to maintain the established purpose of tribunals in the modern era. Although, strictly speaking, we are discussing a private Member's Bill, it is a good example of the Government's general approach to the reform of employment matters, by first seeking consensus, and then seeking progress through partnership with employers, unions and other experts with an interest in the issue. I therefore look for the same breadth of support for the Bill in the House today as it has outside.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Pesticides Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

RESTRICTION ON APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

'.—Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds:—.[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to exempt organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds.

Mr. James Gray: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but it is worth recording how grateful we Back Benchers are for all the work that he has done behind the scenes on private Members' business over the past three or four weeks. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is on his feet.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he may not be too pleased that I am on my feet when he hears what I have to say. He may disagree with my views on organic farming and organic pesticides. I had some responsibility for the matter some years ago when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I have probably largely forgotten all about it since those days.
I believe that new clause 2 is necessary. I am concerned about the requirement on the producers of pesticides to produce all the relevant data for pesticides approval. I believe that during my time at MAFF the relevant data could amount to a cost of about £20 million per approval.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not worried, as I am, that some unscrupulous manufacturers could, as we have seen in the medicines sector, produce products masquerading as organic which are not actually organic, thereby evading the relevant regulations? Does he, therefore, agree that his new clause may not go far enough, as there should be some definition of what is meant by organic in this context?

Mr. Maclean: That is possible, but MAFF and the pesticides safety directorate are not easily fooled by someone writing organic on the label of something that is not an organic product. The new clause is a probing clause, and I do not pretend that it covers all eventualities. A definition of an organic pesticide may be necessary.
I am concerned that we are losing more and more organic materials and organic pesticides in the same way as we are losing, in veterinary medicine, some products that are not used very much—they are used for various small animals and are not sold in large quantities. It is not worth the manufacturer spending time to make the product or spending the millions of pounds on research necessary to bring it to market and get a licence.
It is the same with pesticides. Coal-tar washes are used on roses, and Fairy Liquid is used to wash roses and remove greenfly. Admittedly, it is not a permanent killer, but it is successful for a few days. Many people—retired people and older gardeners—with the chance to treat their roses daily, wander round their gardens and take action every day. They are happy to use such materials, even though they may not be as effective as Glyphosate as a weed killer or as some of the other insecticides that are highly effective in killing most bugs except whitefly. I should be most grateful to anyone who could find something to kill the whitefly in my greenhouse.
There are products that gardeners have used for many years apparently quite safely, with no apparent risk to human health, either from inhalation or absorption through the skin. They have been effective when used on plant material or vegetables, and have not proved dangerous.

Mr. Norman Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many beekeepers are concerned that the treatment that they have been using, TALC, will be made illegal and they will be required to use a chemical formulation instead of the present arrangements with which they are satisfied?

Mr. Maclean: I was not aware of that, but it is another example which adds to my general concern.
I was alerted to the problem by catching on the wireless recently an edition of the better gardener's question time programme which has moved to Classic FM. I heard some advice given by one of the panellists, whom I had better not name—but he had a wonderfully rich Yorkshire accent. He gave wonderful advice on how to treat disease infestation, but was told that the organic product he suggested was now illegal under rules, possibly EC rules, that MAFF is going to implement. He said, "My simple advice is to carry on using it and ignore the rules." That is not advice which I could naturally espouse, but it showed that materials that have been used without problem for at least 50 years by gardeners are now being outlawed.

Mr. Eric Forth: May I press my right hon. Friend on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) a minute or so ago? I am not satisfied that there is a satisfactory definition of organic for this purpose. I say that in all friendliness to my right hon. Friend, who has tabled a new clause which rests heavily on the concept and use of organic pesticides as opposed to non-organic pesticides. Is he satisfied that a sufficiently adequate, comprehensive and workable definition of organic exists for the purposes of his new clause in altering the Bill?

Mr. Maclean: No, I do not believe that such a definition exists at present, but I believe that it should be possible for MAFF—a much underestimated Ministry—and those in the pesticides safety directorate to come up with an acceptable and workable definition. All I look for from the Minister today is a steer on whether the Government may be tempted to take this approach. The Bill will go to another place and it may be possible for

their lordships to come up with a definition. Alternatively, at some future date, a definition of organic could be added to the Bill, as that is probably required to make proper sense of the new clause.
I am seeking to make a point in principle with the new clause. While we welcome the Bill, I am concerned that it could bring about a further tightening of the noose around all those so-called organic products. One could say that a coal-tar wash was initially made up of a synthesised product, but it has been used safely for at least 50 years. I see no reason why it should be outlawed now purely because it is too expensive for the manufacturers, users or, in some cases, the gardeners in their small co-operatives, who use a mixture of Fairy Liquid and some other material. Those materials have no doubt been approved and tested for human safety, but the combination of the different materials has not been tested and approved because the manufacturers of Fairy Liquid did not design it for use on roses. Fairy Liquid may be safe on the hands and good for the dishes, but it was not designed for gardening purposes, so it will not be granted a MAFF licence of approval.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest a very simple definition of organic that might well fulfil the purpose: any naturally occurring substance?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that; it might fulfil the purpose. However, many naturally occurring substances, when refined or treated, can become highly potent. No doubt a MAFF scientist would quickly say that such a definition would not be acceptable. Some of the most dangerous chemicals and compounds are naturally occurring. As an avid mushroom collector, I am aware of the dangers of naturally occurring substances.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I remind my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest complaints made by manufacturers of some of the traditional or well-established products is that testing them in the United Kingdom often incurs a five-figure cost, whereas to license the same product in France or Belgium costs £100 or £200 because those countries accept that, if a product has been used for 20 or 30 years, it is de facto safe.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that there are different charges in different European countries, and Britain probably has some of the higher charges. I am, however, absolutely adamant that we have higher standards of inspection and approval. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of State speak to the Food and Drink Federation a few weeks ago. He said that he had not had any dealings with MAFF before becoming Minister of State and that it was an eye-opener to see that what went on in the various directorates under his command was—I think—infinitely better than he may have believed in opposition.
MAFF has generally suffered much unfair abuse over recent years, yet the work of its various professional committees and directorates is of a very high standard. I would bow to no one in saying that the people who check pesticides and veterinary products, and who work on safety committees in this country set the highest standards in the world—even higher than the Americans,


who like to believe that, with their Food and Drug Administration, they operate high standards. They are much more liable to political manipulation than we are.
12 noon
The Government are keen to boost organic farming, but they will find difficulty in doing so. The previous Government tried to give such farming a little boost, and this Government are trying even more. Although many people say that they would love to eat organic produce, and when asked whether they want products covered in pesticides they will, of course, say no, the public are still not prepared to pay the very high premium on organic produce, especially as most cannot tell the difference in taste. Some people may have a fine enough palate to do so, but many cannot, and do not find the premium worth paying. If the Government want to boost organic farming, it would be correlative to take steps to try to ensure that pesticides used by organic farmers and gardeners are not inadvertently driven off the market. There is no malice on the Government's part; they do not particularly want that to happen.

Mr. Nigel Evans: If the previous Administration were keen, as this Administration are, to boost organic farming, there must be some definition of organic. Could that not be related to the new clause?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Soil Association Ltd. has criteria for determining organic produce, as well as some criteria for determining what organic farmers may use as pesticides on their crops. Such a definition would not be watertight, but it would take us about 90 per cent. of the way down the route.
If the Government want to boost organic farming, they must consider carefully continuing to allow in the marketplace materials that farmers and gardeners have used for years, which have not, of course, been approved by all the committees and been given a MAFF licence, because it is not possible to spend the £20 million necessary to have them tested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned licensing, which I think costs about £7,000 or £10,000. That is nothing in comparison to what has to be paid in research to get a product to the point where it can be taken to MAFF, along with about 200 ft of documents. At least 10 years of research and product development, at a cost of about £20 million, are necessary in order to introduce a new pesticide to the market. If manufacturers spend all that on research, they have to sell an awful lot of produce at a fairly high price before they begin to recover their outlay. They will get a return on their investment only if farmers buy an awful lot of it, and it is used extensively in the large glasshouse industry or on grain farms, or in other enterprises with a large acreage and many users.
Inevitably, the manufacturers will not make pesticides or organic materials for little market gardeners and other small guys, to be used in a minority or niche market. If the day ever comes when organic farming is the majority market, it will be worth while for manufacturers to make products for it.
I suspect that the Government will not be able to accept the new clause today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it contains a point worth taking further,

either in another place or with simple amending legislation, to try to ensure, as far as is possible, that, while protecting human health and safety from dodgy materials made in the garden shed, legitimate organic pesticides are available for those who wish to use them.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) introduced his new clause, and especially for what he said about my Department, repeating my own words. I recall the night in question, and we were deprived of the chance of listening to the president of the National Farmers Union because we had to be cleared out of the hotel when the fire alarm went off.
The right hon.Gentleman has raised an important point. Clearly the new clause must be in order, or it would not have been selected by Madam Speaker, but the essential purpose of the Bill is as a piece of freedom of information legislation. I freely admit that it was a handout Bill left over from the previous Government, and not an invention of the present Government. It has been hanging around Whitehall gathering dust for a while. However, it fills a gap identified some time ago, and we are pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) in promoting it.
The cost of bringing new pesticides and veterinary medicines on to the market has been raised. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is right to say that, despite the high costs of the licence and the documents needed to submit the application—those fill several filing cabinets; I have seen them in the stores both at York and at Weybridge—it is the research that gets the product to that point which is the most expensive.
I take the point that some products are used by individual gardeners as home remedies, and I imagine that the pesticides inspectors turn a blind eye to those for home use. However, when we are talking about products that may be used on foods for consumption, we are in a different ball game. We must be very rigorous about what we allow to be sprayed on food.

Mr. Evans: The Minister will know that many people grow their own food for home consumption, and they could have problems. Will he say something about that? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if there were an organic pesticide it could not be patented as other pesticides could, and that is why some of the chemical industries are not interested in producing one? Much research would be necessary; we have already heard how expensive that is. Yet, after all that, anybody else could produce the pesticide, too, because no patent would be involved.

Mr. Rooker: I do not know the specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am about to deal with the organic aspect, but I do not know whether the problem with organic pesticides is the inability to patent them. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made; that probably is the case. However, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, we have not been able to produce a definition of "organic". We freely admit that that is a problem. The word "organic" is hard to define.
We must not assume that natural products are automatically safe. That is why I ask the House to resist the new clause. Even if we could define the term, we still


could not have a general exemption for organic pesticides en bloc because they are not always safe. I have one example for the House—that of derris, which is permitted for use by organic growers, yet is extremely toxic to aquatic life. Just because a product is labelled "organic", that is not a buzzword for "safe". Like the previous Government, we want to improve organic production. This country has the worst record in the European Union for the amount that we produce organically. We import most of the organic foods on sale in our shops. There is no good reason why we cannot substantially increase organic production, despite all the difficulties involved.
The new clause mentions the use of live ladybirds. The pesticides regulations already exclude the use of ladybirds and certain other products that present no great risk or are covered by other legislation. The purpose of this Bill is not to deal with pesticides in the round; its provisions are very narrow. Clause 1 deals with freedom of information to the public about pesticides, and clause 2 deals with improving the operation of investigations where allegations have been made, bringing it into line with the normal procedures of the health and safety directorate.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: First, I declare an interest: I am a farmer and user of licensed pesticides.
It is a good idea to place on the record the fact that pesticide use in the United Kingdom is probably the most tightly regulated in the world. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 sets out the framework for the licensing and use of pesticides, and ensures that pesticides are used only if they are safe.
The Bill may lead some people to think that all pesticides should be outlawed because they are highly dangerous and injurious to human health. That is a common fallacy. Without some pesticide use, it would be impossible to produce food that the average modern housewife would want to buy. Although we want to encourage organic production, because of the price differential between non-organic and organic produce, the average modern housewife will go for the cheapest product. That is invariably produced using pesticides, which enable a greater quantity of clean food to be produced.
I am all for encouraging organic production, which can be achieved with a properly sustained public information campaign and advertising. One of the main planks for organic production is that only carefully and narrowly defined pesticides are allowed. The Minister has already referred to derris, a naturally occurring organic substance which our ancestors knew about generations ago.
Given that that environment is so tightly regulated, and that the Government will shortly introduce the Food Standards Agency to tighten the use and control of pesticides and food safety in general even further, I am not sure whether the Bill is necessary. Ministers should explain to the general public what extensive powers they already have.

Mr. Evans: I am not a gardener, but my constituency is full of gardeners who grow produce for home consumption—for their families and for others around them. For all we know, they may sell their produce from

the garden gate—that still goes on in my constituency. That is why the provisions in the Bill need to be strengthened. The Minister said that, now and again, people turn a blind eye. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is too strictly interpreted, it will cover people who grow food for their own consumption? The Minister did not respond to that point.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Garden pesticides and commercially used pesticides are controlled in the same way, but it is much more difficult to enforce regulations on home-used products. I am a practitioner who knows how to use the pesticides—there is a huge difference in the way in which they are mixed, in their application rates, in the spray nozzles that are used and in the effect of weather conditions. A huge number of factors affect the amount of active ingredient that ends up on the plant, which is one of the difficulties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is all very interesting, but it goes well beyond the scope of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the terms of the new clause.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is so interesting, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) led me astray. The new clause relates to the use of naturally occurring substances. It states:
Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides".
My general remarks related to the importance of the method of application of organic and inorganic pesticides to their effectiveness.
On the definition of "organic", my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pooh-poohed my suggestion of a naturally occurring substance. As with any simplistic concept, people will find ways in which to get round regulations. However, I should not have thought it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its specialist advisers to come up with a satisfactory definition.
Given the panoply of licensing authorities, it should be possible to exempt some organic pesticides, which would help the organic sector. As the Minister said, organic products are much more widely available on the continent than in this country. Indeed, the lack of home-grown organic products is a deficit in our food production system. Unless the new clause is accepted, the Bill could make conditions for the organic sector even more difficult. I hope that the House will accept at least a variant of the new clause.

Mr. James Paice: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I declare an interest as someone who occasionally uses pesticides.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is rightly concerned about costs to the industry. We shall, I hope, soon discuss an amendment that I tabled specifically to address that issue.
The new clause relates to the use of organic, naturally occurring, chemicals, including old ones. On this occasion, I must resort to supporting the Government, as the Minister was absolutely right to suggest that the matter is not as simple as it appears to be. I very much welcome his comment that just because something is natural or organic, that does not mean it is safe. It is right and proper that we should put to rest the mystique that often surrounds organic products. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and others will be aware, many plants and vegetables contain chemicals that, although naturally occurring, can be very toxic if taken in extreme quantities or extracted and used in some other way.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Rhubarb.

Mr. Paice: I take it that my hon. Friend is politely reminding me that rhubarb is one such plant, rather than referring to the quality of my speech. He is right. Rhubarb, potatoes, spinach, mushrooms and many other foods contain naturally occurring chemicals that are toxic and should not be used.
The new clause refers to the use of old organic products. That is not a new idea; it goes back a long way. In about 400 BC, Democritos of Abdera recommended soaking seeds in sedum juice to protect them against disease before sowing. A little later, in about 50 BC, Plinius the Elder reported on the use of ashes, crushed cypress leaves and diluted urine as crop protection products. Not many hon. Members would want such things applied without any regulation, which is what is being proposed.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Given that my constituency is in the north-east, where leek growing and competitive leek growing are important, I would hate my hon. Friend to stop people from using the traditional methods to grow leeks, which include using urine and burying old mattresses. Those people would be alarmed to be caught under the pesticides regulations.

Mr. Paice: I was close to my hon. Friend's constituency all day yesterday and am well aware of some of the activities that go on there. I certainly do not want to prevent keen gardeners from doing such things. I am merely concerned, as are my hon. Friends, to ensure that the legislation is properly targeted so that it does not have any unfortunate side-effects or consequences.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Even if the new clause were accepted, organic pesticides would still have to be licensed. As I pointed out, our licensing system is one of the most stringent in the world. It specifies the concentration of the naturally occurring produce, the formulation and the maximum residue levels permitted in plants, so the public would still have extensive and stringent protection if the new clause were accepted.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right, but we are considering the information that is made available to the public. If something is to be licensed and to go through the rigorous process to which he referred, it is only right and proper that relevant information should be made available. As the Minister said, the previous Government

prepared this legislation, but did not have time to introduce it. I shall table some amendments that may improve it a little, but the public should have access to the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the matter further because of the great problem of defining the word organic.
None of the definitions stands up, including "naturally occurring products", when one considers all the naturally occurring products that are toxic. If the new clause is added to the Bill, we will merely create another opportunity for lawyers to argue at length about the definitions used in it, which I do not want to do.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to delay the debate. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the Bill is not about regulation but about information, which is what we should be discussing.
All the flaws of the new clause have been pointed out, but I will remind hon. Members of them. They are the difficulty of defining "organic" and the fact that organic material can be toxic. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: It is clearly inappropriate for the new clause to be added to the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that have been pointed out, but I hope that I have flagged up a little problem with which the Government will have to grapple. I should have liked to grapple with it five or six years ago, but the matter was a low priority because we had to carry out so many reviews of existing pesticides.
After the Government have speeded up or completed the reviews, and if they want to encourage organic farming, they must turn their mind to the problem of organic compounds, some of which are made in garden sheds and are highly dangerous.
We have had an excellent debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

REGULATION OF PESTICIDES

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
'which shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide. nor the costs of collating the information for Government departments or the manufacturer's own use.'.
We discussed costs in Committee, and I asked what charges would be levied on those who wanted access to the information. The Minister gave a number of assurances. On reflection, I think that they should be in the Bill, but the problem is the vexed question of what is meant in law by the phrase "attributable to".
The courts have found it difficult to answer that causation problem clearly and conclusively in many other contexts, most notably concerning what damages are caused by acts or conduct constituting, for example, breach of contract or tort. The cost of original research is attributable to the supply of information, because


information could not be supplied without such research being carried out. The amendment would prevent the cost of research being brought into the charging equation.
It would be unreasonable to expect members of the public who want access to the information to pay such costs, but fine words do not necessarily achieve the results that we want, which is why the assurances should be in the Bill. The cost of providing the information—in Committee, the Minister mentioned photocopying—would be low, but I am concerned. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions on the subject. One of his replies stated:
The cost of providing information to the public about agricultural pesticides is borne by the Department and, certain publication charges apart, is not recovered from the public.
Most seriously, he added:
An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." —  [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]
If the costs are to be the basis for introducing a charging mechanism, we must know what they are. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and the Minister must reconsider the issue. If they can be worked out, the Minister's answer is not as helpful as it could be; if the cost of provision cannot be disaggregated from the other costs of the pesticides safety directorate, there is added impetus to agree to amendment No. 1.
I am concerned that there is no accurate basis on which to arrange the charging mechanism. In another parliamentary answer, the Minister stated:
The costs of providing information to the public under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is borne by the Department. No charge for the work is passed on to the agrochemical industry." —  [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 75.]
That is technically correct, but I have raised the matter with the agrochemical industry, which told me that few, if any, requests have been made to view data in the pesticides safety directorate reading room. The directorate also made the point that it would therefore be wrong to devote manpower and expenditure to prepare the information for disclosure if there was little public interest in seeing that information. Another written answer revealed that there were only seven requests in 1997 to see the data. However, the British Agrochemicals Association clearly suggests that disclosure would impose costs on the agrochemical industry.

Mr. Forth: I have also read the Minister's comments in Committee, which were partly helpful, but not very. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reinforce the points that my hon. Friend is making. In Committee, the Minister said:
I understand that the Pesticides Safety Directorate has an incredible number of overseas visitors who trawl through the paperwork in the library." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998: c. 6.]
That strikes me as totally at odds with the answers received by my hon. Friend. The issue is clouded by confusion and misinformation, so I do not know how we can expect to achieve a proper costing mechanism to fulfil the requirements of the Bill.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will address what

appears to be a contradiction in those two statements. All I seek is to write into the Bill the principle that the charges made to those who wish to access information will be purely the extra costs incurred by the directorate in making the information available. The directorate should not be able to take the opportunity to load on to the charges any of the other costs that it incurs. The directorate's cost runs into many millions of pounds and is mainly covered by a levy from the industry—I welcome the fact that the levy has recently been reduced.
The method by which the charges are calculated is important, and I have outlined my concerns about whether it is possible to calculate them fairly and equitably. I am not against charging for information, because it is right and proper that if people want to access data they should pay the proper charge. However, I seek to ensure that they pay the proper charge and no more. My amendment would ensure that.

Mr. Forth: I shall follow directly on what my hon. Friend has said, because it strikes me that the position is getting unnecessarily muddled. The problem arises from the wording of Bill, which is not as helpful as it might be, even though the Minister claimed that the phrase
reasonably attributable to the supply of information
represented a breakthrough, which I doubt. The word "reasonable" has a distinguished history in legislation in this country and is deemed generally to be understood, but in this case I wonder. In Committee, the Minister said:
We intend to fix charges at no more than the cost of supply. Generally speaking, that will be the cost of photocopying—large administration costs will not be involved." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998; c. 5.]
I wonder whether that will be the case.
I am not sure whether I entirely agree with the amendment. It states—not unreasonably—that the cost
shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide, nor the costs of collating the information".
So far, so good, but it continues:
for … the manufacturer's own use.
If a manufacturer required information, it might not be unreasonable to require the manufacturer to pay for it. A distinction should be made between the private citizen and the manufacturer. I am, therefore, not totally happy with the amendment.
I hope that the amendment's real purpose is to try to elicit from the Minister a much more structured reply than any that we have had to date. Certainly, we did not get such a reply in Committee. I hope that, since the Committee on 4 March, the Minister and his officials have come up with more helpful information. From what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, I understand that his attempt to probe through parliamentary questions led to no greater success than in Committee or, I fear, than we will have today. However, let us give it another try.
If we cannot make any progress on costs, I may have to press the point on Third Reading. I have some comments to make now, but I have further comments on the Bill's financial effects and its effects on public service manpower. Third Reading may be a more appropriate time for that. To keep my comments brief, I want simply to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. It is reasonable to ask


the Minister or the Bill's promoter for figures on the sort of costs known to be associated with the provision of information and some estimate of the costs that would result from the Bill so that we have some idea of the costs involved. We are asking not for precision but for relatively broad figures. A request for orders of magnitude is not unreasonable.
Apart from good management and good government, I ask for this information because private Members' Bills to which no costs are attached are increasingly brought before the House. We are asked to pass them with blank cheques attached. That is unreasonable and unacceptable. Ideally, private Members' Bills should involve no additional public expenditure. If they do, that expenditure should be modest, and it should be shown far better than often happens. The importance of the amendment is that it gives the Minister and the promoter an opportunity to give us information and guidance to reassure us so that we can speed the Bill on its way.

Mr. Waterson: This is an important Bill, but the amendment is also important and has my whole-hearted support. I endorse the comments my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
We are discussing the phrase
costs reasonably attributable to the supply of the information".
As we have heard, in a recent written answer, the Minister usefully confirmed that under, I think, section 16 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which the Bill would amend, the whole cost of providing information to the public is borne by the Department. The Bill represents a major departure, possibly a precedent, in such legislation. It is therefore fair to press the Minister a little further. I am sure that, in his usually helpful fashion, he will deal with the matter and say exactly what is envisaged.
The Bill's aim could not be more laudable and I am sure that it enjoys cross-party support: it is to make more information available to the public and to make it as accessible as possible. Perhaps we are gradually moving more towards right to information legislation such as has existed in the United States for many years. It would make nonsense of that aspiration if the Bill included a practical deterrent to members of the public who wanted to seek out such information, as they no doubt will for valid and, for them, important reasons. It would be wrong to build deterrence into the charging structure. The amendment is very much a public interest argument, which is why I support it.
Presumably, the Minister will in due course produce regulations setting out the precise nature of the charges, as is normal. For much of the previous Parliament, I served on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considered more than 3,000 statutory instruments a year. One feature which we often noticed on a cross-party and cross-House basis was, that in legislation with a set of charges in place to obtain documents or information, we were often dealing with statutory instruments that increased those charges. All too often, the charges were to be increased by a considerable multiple of the rate of increase in the cost of living. I am not saying that that has happened in the Minister's Department, but some Departments with a charging system in place were apt to seek to increase the charges dramatically.
It would be helpful if the Minister would deal with the immediate proposal and give what the Americans call a ballpark idea of the figure about which we are talking.

He should try also to give an undertaking—as far as he can bind his successors or himself in the future—that the charges will not shoot up once the system is established, as that is a worry.
All too often, the Treasury is a sinister ghostly presence, lurking in the background of legislation. In this case, it makes an appearance in the clause and is mentioned by name. At one end of the scale, the Minister could look at the simple cost of preparing photocopies of certain information. As a lawyer, I suggest that that is likely to be the most consistent interpretation of the wording of the clause. However, there are alternatives at the other end of the scale, including elements for staff costs, overheads and research.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will know that the subject of the internet was raised in Committee. I know little about the internet and care less, but I suspect that, although it is often regarded as a cost-free method of dissemination, there must be costs associated with putting information on the internet in a structured way to make it easily retrievable. To those costs one might add the cost of the famous reading room in York to which the Minister referred. The possibility of a range of costs may be more wide than my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend makes a valid and, by his standards, modern point. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that into his answer—perhaps he will put it on the internet.
The central question is: what pound of flesh is the Treasury seeking in this instance? What orders has the Minister received from his Treasury colleagues? Are there guidelines in other legislation, or is there an accepted formula for producing the charging rates? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, it all comes down to working out the meaning of the word "attributable". As a matter of law, we are talking about causation and the link between the charge and the costs which led to it. Could it be argued that the costs of the original research are attributable for this purpose because the research is an absolute precondition to the information being available in the first place? That matter needs to be addressed. If, as I hope and expect, the Minister gives a reassuring response, what would be the harm of putting the amendment in the Bill to make it clear?
I think it was Oscar Wilde who spoke about a man who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In this instance, we are talking about information which will have a potentially high value for those seeking and receiving it, but also—we hope—will have a low cost to obtain. This is an important point of principle, not a minor matter, so it is worthy of the consideration that I am sure the Minister will have given it. It would be right to have some guidance clearly stated in the Bill.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I shall not detain the House long, but I am slightly puzzled about the question of cost. Will there be any cost to the Ministry from the provision of information relating to the withdrawal of a pesticide that was previously considered safe?
I bring to the attention of the House the question of Rose Clear—the spray that was withdrawn. I still cannot understand why it was withdrawn, because, despite all my


letters to the Ministry, the only information I was able to obtain was that it was an irritant when sprayed into the eyes. Most things are an irritant if they are sprayed into someone's eyes and I was never able to find out why Rose Clear in particular was withdrawn. Huge costs must have been involved in the withdrawal and, since withdrawal was the Ministry's decision, did the Ministry bear any of those costs and does the Bill mean that it will bear such costs in future?

Mr. Rooker: First, I shall deal, albeit probably inadequately, with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I have a very modest garden, but I remember, when Rose Clear was withdrawn, finding a bottle on the shelf in the garage. I freely admit that I continued to use it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It was a tiny bottle and it soon went. I do not know what the costs of the withdrawal were—obviously, the decision was taken by one of my predecessors in the previous Administration. If my hon. Friend continues to be unhappy with the letters I send her, I shall look further into the matter and reply to her separately.

Mrs. Golding: I have never asked my hon. Friend for further information. Rose Clear was withdrawn under the previous Administration and it is to them that I wrote.

Mr. Rooker: There are many people still writing to me about Rose Clear. I shall look into the matter, because my hon. Friend asked a specific question about the cost to the Ministry of the withdrawal. Although I do not carry the information around with me, I should say that pesticides are regularly withdrawn. I remember answering a question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) some months ago and being astonished to find that a number of pesticides, running into several hundreds, had been withdrawn for many reasons. There had been no complaint, because that is part of the process of regulation and of the coming and going of products.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the reference which I made in Committee to administration costs. What I said was true: I had been to York, visited the pesticides safety directorate as part of my responsibility and seen the reading room. The point which I was making to the Committee—inadequately, I admit—was that we have a world-class organisation in the pesticides safety directorate, as we do in the veterinary medicines directorate, and overseas researchers and manufacturers queue up to come and see the way we regulate. Sometimes, they want their products regulated and registered in Britain, because we have a good organisation and they know that they can market their product if they go through our regulatory process.
My point is that people visit York to see the procedures we use there and the information that is retained there and to experience the way we do things. It is an educational process, for which we do not charge because it is part of the "public good" cost of running the PSD. I realise that some of the costs come back via the levy and, as has been said, we have recently reduced the charges. However, we do not make a charge for that activity by the PSD and we do not intend to start charging for it. It is good for

Britain that we have people coming from overseas to see part of the Ministry and our regulatory process. We have a world-class organisation.

Mr. Forth: Is the Minister saying that there can and should be no distinction drawn between the provision of information to United Kingdom citizens on the one hand and to foreign nationals and companies on the other; or does he at least admit the possibility that it would not be unreasonable to draw that distinction and charge overseas individuals more? From his remarks, it is clear that a significant element of the costs incurred are attributable to use by non-UK nationals and businesses.

Mr. Rooker: No. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my, probably inadequate, explanation. At York, we run seminars for international groups of visitors, from universities and from Government Departments throughout the world. They do not walk away with the type of documents relating to the individual pesticides whose availability the Bill provides for. There is a collaborative process. Occasionally, people from this country take the pesticides safety directorate roadshow, so to speak, to overseas Governments, and to overseas universities for collaborative work. The issue of pesticides and veterinary medicines is not confined within the borders of specific countries; it is international.
The information that we make available in seminars and overseas visits relates to the overall regulatory process—the checks and balances—whereas the Bill would make available precise information relating to specific pesticides and to the regulatory process and the information that we had been given.
In that regard, there is a paradox in the Bill. There is a cost to the taxpayer and there is a cost to the individual who makes the request. One must always divide the area where the public good meets the private good. I repeat what I said in Committee: it is not our intention to start to introduce new charges, such as charges for the reading room at York.
If we put pesticides information on the internet, although we would not charge, there might be a resultant saving. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website, which is separate from MAFF, is one of the most visited sites on the internet. There is a BSE site as well. Both sites are regularly updated. Journalists are encouraged to use those sites. When they obtain information from the internet, it reduces the need for them to telephone Whitehall place and Nobel house for information. That reduces pressure, at a time when an increasing amount of information is required from the information department in MAFF.
Although I would not claim that we can cut the information department or lower the costs, I can say that good use of the internet can control increased costs in future, when we might be churning out more and more information. People are encouraged to use the internet, and they are responding. If we have a good website service, more people will be encouraged to use it. By definition, I hope, a reasonable person would not expect the cost of information officers in MAFF to burgeon. To that extent, use of the internet is important.
As I said in Committee, essentially we are talking about the cost of further photocopying—the cost of supplying paper. By and large, we already charge people for making


information available in evaluations. The price depends on the number of documents, the size and the maximum. We now have a maximum set price of £25. Sometimes information is provided free in correspondence, or is provided in priced publications.
We do not intend to put onerous costs on people for the information that will flow from the Bill, which will include detailed regulations. The price should not go beyond the cost of providing the necessary paperwork. Paperwork can run to thousands of sheets, so we must consider that matter in due course, but currently the maximum cost to the user is £25.
We are under no pressure from the Treasury to use the Bill as a money-making measure. We would reject any such pressure, partly because part of the pesticides safety directorate is run by a levy on the industry, which means, in turn, that the industry is entitled to know the costs. Recently, we have been able to reduce costs, partly as a result of the directorate's efficiency.

Mr. Paice: I want to clarify the costs issue. The Minister helpfully outlined the costs involved. However, I bring back to the written answer that he gave me four days ago, in which he said:
An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 23 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]
On what basis will the Government work out the charging mechanism that will be in the Bill?

Mr. Rooker: It could be the marginal cost of the purchase of the paper and the photocopying. We could walk up and down the high streets of this country and see how much photocopying costs. I do not expect the costs to be much higher than that. I am not prepared to ask officers of MAFF or the pesticides safety directorate to conduct a huge exercise and employ consultants to calculate the existing costs. According to the information that I have received, those costs are very small. Obviously, one can never tell what will happen when new information areas are opened, but we shall have better information when the regulations are drafted.
In my written answer, I also pointed out that, in 1997, we had a list of 47 organisations that we contacted automatically and provided with information. We dealt with only 98 one-off requests for evaluation documents in 1997, and only seven of those requests sought underlying data. Many requests may be met reasonably through correspondence rather than by providing underlying data.

Mr. Waterson: I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful. If he is not in a position today to give us the likely specific cost, will he address my other point and assure the House that, whatever the initial cost, it will not be increased in future by more than inflation?

Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes. In asking the House to reject the amendment, I stress that, under the Bill as it is presently drafted, it will be illegal for the pesticides safety directorate to exceed the costs that are related only to the supply of information—which does not include the regulatory process or research.

Mr. Bradshaw: I think that there is a slight misunderstanding about the costs involved. It is not about

the costs of the regulatory procedure, which occurs anyway. The details are available: it is simply a matter of how much it will cost to make them public.
I make one point that the Minister omitted to mention in terms of accessibility and the cost of getting information at present and in the future. As well as the internet, I understand that the pesticides safety directorate in York and the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle provide copies of documents free to libraries and education establishments around the country. Therefore, if people cannot afford to travel to York, they can receive free of charge the information that they need.
In asking the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I point out that its wording is worse than what appears in my Bill—which I believe is an improvement on existing legislation. The Bill refers to restricting the cost of the supply of information, whereas the old wording refers to a "reasonable fee". It does not restrict the fee to the cost of simply supplying the information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that fact and ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that the Bill is an improvement on existing legislation—I do not detract from that statement. However, the amendment is based on my concern about the phrase "reasonably attributable". Once we introduce a qualification such as that, the matter is open to debate. My amendment seeks to limit the scope of debate about the phrase "reasonably attributable".
I accept the Minister's assurance that his Department has no intention of profiteering on the back of this measure and that the Treasury is not pressuring him to do so. I have no doubt that that is true today. However, my concern is always not what a Minister may say, in all honesty, today, but what one of his successors may decide to do at some stage in the future. A Bill is not only for today, but for all eternity—or at least for a long period.
Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, and I welcome the Minister's comments. It is extremely important that he ensures that the pesticides safety directorate abides by his words and does not impose charges that are not connected with the actual copying, typing or whatever of information. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
 Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Bradshaw.]

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not move amendment No. 3, as it related to important aspects of the Bill that should have been discussed. On the face of it, the Bill allows access to greater information about pesticides, but it contains draconian measures that give me cause for considerable concern.
My first objection is that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a Government handout Bill. The Minister admitted that it is a Government Bill that had been kicking around on the shelves of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the previous Government,


and it was still kicking around on the shelves of MAFF under this Government, until someone pulled it down, dusted it off and put it into the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman had that objection to every Bill that had started on a Government shelf, the number of Bills going through the House in private Members' time with the general agreement of the House would probably be reduced by about three quarters. If private Members had the drafting back-up of the civil service, we could all produce Bills, but sadly, as yet, we do not.

Mr. Atkinson: I regret that a Liberal Democrat is going along with the system. Back-Bench Members have fewer and fewer powers, rights and opportunities to make their voice heard in the Chamber. One such opportunity is the private Members' Bill system. I accept that Government Bills will be picked up under the private Members' ballot system. I confess that I did that myself when I was a new Member, but I think that it is an abuse of the House.
The Bill, which extends powers considerably, has not been properly debated. It was given a Second Reading on the nod. It went to Committee, where it was debated for less than 30 minutes. Only half the matters were discussed.
The Bill extends powers from Ministers to local authorities, and allows local authorities to appoint others to break into people's houses with a warrant and to search business premises. Its amendments to schedule 2 to the 1985 Act are draconian. It lists the powers in relation to searching ships, aircraft, houses and containers, and it provides for people to be dealt with if they do not answer questions properly. The officers empowered under the Bill are given the powers of police officers. That aspect of the Bill has not been debated at all. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire would move his amendment, so that we could debate that aspect, which causes me such concern.
It is a pity that we chuck the Bill, half dealt with and not properly considered, through to the House of Lords so that it can do what this House has not done. The Bill should not be allowed to pass without concern being expressed by hon. Members about the abuse of the private Members' Bill system, because the Bill has taken away another hon. Member's opportunity for a debate on his or her own Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and one other. Many Bills that go through the House and which have had Government support never get on to the Floor in Government time, because the Government also have time constraints. It is not a party matter. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the same happened when he was first here, under a Conservative Administration. Little changes in the law—one-clause or two-clause changes—often do not feature in the Government's plan when they present big Bills to the House.
The fact that when a Back Bencher is looking for a Bill to promote, he finds out which Bills in an area of interest are waiting on the shelf is, in itself, no argument against

the system. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. I should love to reform the law on inquests. I know that there has been a file on the Home Office desk for years on reform of inquests, but nobody has done anything about it. One of the Bills that I would consider if I ever won the ballot—I do not know what one has to do—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would rather the hon. Gentleman did not stray into the way in which the House works, but stuck to the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Hughes: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rest my case on the fact that we have many opportunities, but taking Bills from the Government would not be appropriate.
My substantive point is that the issue matters hugely to the public, who are generally concerned about pesticides—their impact and information about them. Anything that we can do to ensure better access to information, provided in a controlled way, should be welcomed.
I am one of the Bill's sponsors, because I believe that it is a matter of public concern about which there should be maximum information. There was an opportunity to raise issues in Committee, where the Bill could have been debated longer, but hon. Members chose not to. The public hugely support the Bill's general thrust.

Mr. Cynog Dais: May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that every minute is now precious? It is terribly important to some of us that the fourth Bill on the list, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, receives its Third Reading.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a point which we all understand about Fridays. I support his Bill.
The public will benefit from the Pesticides Bill, which I hope will receive Third Reading without opposition in the House and go on to further consideration in another place.

Mrs. Golding: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on his fine Bill. On behalf of all those who fish and care about the rivers in this country, may I say that the Bill will be of great help to people who find pollution in those rivers? On behalf of all fishermen, I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and effort to introduce this important Bill.

Sir Richard Body: I have one eye on the clock as I am conscious that we have some good Bills yet to discuss.
I rise to speak only because it is said that pesticides are used more extensively in my constituency than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the incidence of two sorts of cancer is, according to the cancer map, worse there than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents therefore see a connection.
I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it contains defects. It is a mouse of a Bill—a nice mouse or perhaps a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that the Minister agrees that it does not go far enough, and I look forward to him introducing a Government Bill that will go far further, on the assumption that the proposed freedom of information Bill will not go quite as far as either of us would like.

Mr. Paice: I, too, understand the desire to move on.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on promoting the Bill which, as has been said several times, was already in the frame under the previous Government. It therefore has the support of Conservative Members.
I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that I did not move amendment No. 3 or speak to the amendments in that group. That was partly because of an answer that I received from the Minister earlier this week stating that, despite all the concerns, in 1997 no pesticides were seized or destroyed by inspectors when they visited farms. Another reason for not moving the amendment was my understanding that, assuming the Bill receives its Third Reading, it will proceed to the other place, where the amendments that I did not speak to will receive a better hearing. They involve legal technicalities that may well require the judgment of those in the other place, who perhaps have more expertise in such matters than I do.
The Opposition congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter and are more than happy to agree to the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Rooker: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). The Bill's two key parts—access to information and improvement of the enforcement mechanism—although discussed only briefly in Committee, were debated to the satisfaction of hon. Members, who considered the matters both before the Bill entered Committee and in Committee. This House is not the final arbiter. Down the corridor, the other place will also look at the Bill in its entirety, and if it is dissatisfied, it will send it back.
I understand the displeasure of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) at a Back Bencher promoting a Bill that was proposed by the previous Government, but frankly, the Bill is for the greater good of the public. It is up to each hon. Member, successful or otherwise in the ballot, to choose the subject of a Bill. It is not for Governments to impose Bills on Back Benchers.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I reassure the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that although I have taken on a Bill that was around for a long time and dusted it off, that does not mean that I do not feel strongly about the issues that it raises. The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) made the important point that there is growing public concern. There is also a certain amount of scientific evidence that increases concern about long-term effects of pesticide use and consumption, especially in relation to cancer and infectious diseases.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I want to make it clear that I have no objection to the Bill. I object to the Bill, worthy as it may be, not being debated in Government time. The Government have pinched private Members' time.

Mr. Bradshaw: I am not here to defend a system about which I am still learning after only 10 months in the House.
The hon. Member for Hexham also said that the Bill was draconian. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it was a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that it is rather more than that, and that it is not as draconian as the hon. Member for Hexham would have us think. Some of the measures that he mentioned, such as bursting into people's homes and boarding hovercrafts and boats, are in the original Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which is nothing to do with my Bill. This Bill simply makes the enforcement procedure fairer and more effective. He may also have overlooked the fact that the Bill is concerned with not only pesticides in agriculture but those used in people's homes. To deprive enforcement officers of the possibility of being able to enter a home and take photographs, or to pass other measures in the amendments that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted to move, is to lose sight of an aspect of pesticide control.
We have had a full and open debate, and I do not want to hold up procedures any longer. I know that other hon. Members' Bills, about which their promoters feel very strongly, are yet to be discussed. I hope that the House feels that the Bill improves public access and the enforcement system. In the light of recent food scares, it is in the interest not only of consumers but of producers and the industry that public confidence in the safety of food and the environment is increased. It is a question of credibility. I hope that the Bill will help to restore and safeguard that confidence, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Animal Health (Amendment) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Pesticides Bill was described as a mouse of a Bill, but this Bill is protozoan in its modesty. It will, however, significantly improve animal welfare. It is a one-clause Bill intended to perform two functions.
The first function is to give more security and certainty to laws that stipulate that premises where animals are held in quarantine are secure. That ensures that animals do not escape and that any case of rabies does not spread from animal to animal or from animal to human.
The second function is to fill a gap in the law. At the moment, inspectors have no right to enter kennels where there might be misuse of animals. Unfortunately, I have heard of 100 distressing cases of animals being neglected or misused, or where symptoms of ill health have not been spotted. I shall not burden the House with the details.
The quarantine industry is well run. Of the 81 existing kennels, all but five have a good record of abiding by the voluntary code of practice laid down by the Ministry. Three have refused to take part, and two, when examined, did not come up to the necessary standards. Those are improving their standards. I do not wish to name the offending kennels that are not covered by the Bill, because I hope that they will be persuaded by the example set by the Bill and come in and adopt the necessary standards of welfare.
The Bill will help us to reduce the anxiety and distress that owners of companion animals suffer when their animals go into quarantine—not only because of the length of time that they are to be parted from the animals, but because of the awful uncertainty about conditions in the kennels. It will also go some way towards reducing man's inhumanity to defenceless animals.

Mr. Eric Forth: I welcome the Bill for several reasons, not least because it strikes me as being almost the ideal candidate for private Members' legislation. I say to its promoter, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that it is modest but important in its aspirations, and relatively non-controversial. It also has another quality that to me is as important as anything: it carries no direct public expenditure implications, and therefore does not require a money resolution or a Ways and Means resolution.
I also welcome the Bill because it seeks to strengthen and reinforce the excellent and long-standing system of quarantine that we enjoy in this country, which I strongly support.
I wonder in passing how possible it is that the intentions and effects of the Bill may give rise to an increase in costs at kennels, and therefore in charges made for quarantine purposes. To the extent to which that may happen, could the Bill risk deterring people from going through the proper quarantine procedures, and encourage them to seek to evade the rules?
There is a balance to be struck—I accept what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about that—between making quarantine secure and attractive, and causing any danger of costs escalating to the point where we could move in the opposite direction and find that we were deterring people from using quarantine properly. I mention that possibility simply to put down a marker.
There is another reason why I welcome the Bill. My eye was caught by an article in the New Scientist on 17 January, entitled, "Price of Pet Freedom". It pointed out that, apart from safeguarding us against rabies, which is the element of the system usually mentioned,
quarantine also guards Britain from other dangerous diseases.
The article continues:
quarantine kennels regularly detect and treat other animal diseases that are prevalent on the Continent".
It goes on to list some of those. I shall not attempt to do so myself, mainly because I could not pronounce them—but they sound pretty frightening to me.
That important element of our quarantine system is sometimes overlooked, and people tend, understandably, to discuss it more narrowly in terms of rabies alone. The fact that they then construct an argument for doing away with our quarantine provisions is wrong, based on that narrow view, and regrettable. One of the valuable aspects of the Bill is that, to the extent to which it strengthens our quarantine provisions and makes them more secure, it helps to perform a useful public service, in trying to ensure that those other diseases do not come into this country.
The Bill is appropriate on a variety of levels. It is timely and it does something that is both modest and sensible. For those reasons, I give it my whole-hearted support.

Mr. James Paice: I, too, support the Bill, but wish to raise just one issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on, as he said, filling a little gap in the legislation. However, one aspect of the impact of the Bill to which he did not refer is that it would allow the Minister to make regulations on animal welfare in quarantine kennels. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has already said that although the minimum standards are acceptable, the code of practice requires higher standards, which should be legislated for.
If the Government use the Bill as a basis for improving welfare standards in quarantine kennels, the owners of those premises will incur costs. I do not wish to debate whether it is right or wrong to improve welfare standards; I am concerned only about the cost that would be incurred as a result.
The Government are also reviewing quarantine regulations, and have published a discussion document containing five options for reforming the quarantine regulations. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wants no change in the status quo, but others take a different view. I challenge the Government on the timing of the outcome of their deliberations on the future of quarantine. If they decide that quarantine as we know it should stop, and that it should be replaced by vaccinations or pet


passports—I refer to quarantine within the European Union, rather than animals coming from countries where rabies is endemic—that will dramatically reduce the demand for quarantine facilities. The Government must not load significant costs on kennel owners by forcing them to improve their facilities if, within a year or two, they might have no business from which to recover those costs.
I hope that the Minister can allay my concerns by saying that he will either not produce regulations on the welfare of animals in quarantine until we know the outcome of the Government's deliberations on quarantine, or ensure that any change in the system will be made on such a time scale that anyone who invests in facilities as a result of the Bill will have time to recover the costs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome this modest proposal, which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) modestly presented to the House. He is a constituent of mine, and I often support him. I hope that the House will support the Bill and not be distracted by arguments about quarantine changes, which can be dealt with at a later date.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): it is a myth that quarantine is all about rabies. The pressure mounted by lobby groups to abolish the quarantine laws ignores all the other issues raised in the New Scientist article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We should therefore not rush judgment on that issue. It is not a question of not wanting to be the Government who let rabies into the country. This matter goes well beyond rabies, to issues such as climatic change and bugs discovered in quarantine cells.
All those matters are being thoroughly examined by a group of experts headed by Professor Kennedy, and we expect to receive its report in May or June. If it decides

that one or more of the five options are as good as, or better than, the status quo, we shall go to full public consultation. I cannot forecast when or whether the usual quarantine regulations will be changed.
The Bill has another good quality—it started life as a ten-minute Bill. I always think that it is a real plus when an hon. Member manages to put something on the statute book by using that process.
We currently have no powers to enforce the welfare code. Thousands of pet owners assume that because the quarantine kennels are registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they have a seal of approval—that is not the case. We may need to establish a star rating for the quality of welfare.
To avoid doubt about the numbers involved, I refer hon. Members to columns 270–73 of yesterday's Hansard, which contain the written answer that I gave to the question tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on quarantine establishments. I said that, in 1997, the total throughput of all the quarantine premises in England included 3,351 cats, 4,028 dogs, 29 rabbits, 11 ferrets, five guinea pigs, one rat, two gerbils and four chinchilla. All those animals deserved to be looked after properly. The cost to owners is substantial—owners must be able to put their pets in quarantine kennels secure in the knowledge that they will be well looked after. The Government support the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it its Third Reading.

Mr. Flynn: I am very grateful for the comments that have been made. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional costs on the great mass of owners of premises, as they accepted the previous Government's sensible policy of operating the code of conduct and conditions with the co-operation of the industry. The only purposes of the Bill in that respect are to eliminate rogue operators who may not comply with the regulations, and to deal with changes of ownership. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY AND FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN

'.—In considering how to comply with the requirements of section 2(1) and (2) of this Act the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the mobility needs of the elderly and
(b) the mobility needs of families with young children;
and any increase in the volume of traffic that may result from the fulfilment of those needs.'. — [Mr. Chope]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 27, at end insert '() noise'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 27, at end insert
'(3A) In considering how to comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the mobility needs of persons with disabilities, and
(b) the need for an adequate provision of taxi services in rural and non-rural areas.'.

Mr. Chope: First, I point out that amendment No. 13, which was tabled by the promoter, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is the same as new clause 1, which I tabled, but which was not selected for debate.
It will not have escaped the notice of the House that clause 2 was substantially rewritten in Committee. Indeed, the whole Bill was changed, including its title, which used to refer to "United Kingdom targets". We may be able to say more about that when we discuss the next group of amendments.
I am delighted that the promoter tabled amendment No. 13 and that it is supported by the Minister. It arises from the concern, which I expressed in Committee, that the Bill differentiated between good and bad road traffic—it placed all cars and lorries in the bad category, and all public transport vehicles, however polluting, in the good category.
Clause 1 was amended in Committee so that the definition of road traffic excluded all vehicles with capacity for eight or more passengers. I said in Committee that road traffic comprising vehicles carrying or designed to carry people with disabilities were good, and that the Bill should specify those vehicles as well as public transport vehicles that could carry eight or more passengers.
I also said that the elderly and the disabled often found it more appropriate to travel by taxi. The Minister was reluctant to accept any of my arguments in Committee, but, when pressed by her hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Lancaster

and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who took her to task for not defining taxis as good vehicles, she relented and put her name to amendment No. 13.
I shall concentrate on new clause 2, which builds on the argument that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the Minister have now accepted on the mobility needs of people with disabilities. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to have regard not merely to the mobility needs of persons with disabilities and the need for adequate taxi services in rural and non-rural areas when considering how to comply with the requirements, of clause 2(1) and (2), but to
the mobility needs of the elderly and … the mobility needs of families with young children;
and any increase in the volume of traffic that may result from the fulfilment of those needs.
That is obvious common sense. Many supermarkets and shopping centres make special parking provision for families with young children because they recognise the mobility needs of such families.

Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think this a frivolous question—it is not intended as such—but what has he in mind when he says young children? Obviously, that is open to interpretation. In discussing the matter with some of my constituents, I found that one of the problems they find it most difficult to come to terms with is the large volume of traffic caused by parents taking children to school. Would the amendment cover that group, and how young are the children that he has in mind?

Mr. Chope: I was thinking of children up to the age of 10, perhaps, most of whom have to rely on parents, friends and relatives to transport them not merely to school but to places of recreation. I am the father of two children under 10, and I do not expect them to go on trips on their own. They are wholly dependent on their parents and others to transport them. I would certainly not allow my children to go out on their own on the roads on bicycles or to walk.
That is the group of people I had in mind and it is a topical subject today because the Government are crowing about the fact that they will provide extra nursery school places this autumn—60,000 extra, I think. Without doubt, more traffic will result. I am saying that it is a good thing even if more traffic is generated—I see the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) nodding from the Government Front Bench—to enable people to take advantage of those extra places. However, the Government have not put anything on the record to show that they regard it as a good thing. Indeed, the whole tone of this debate has been how important it is to reduce road traffic, yet the Government are today promoting a policy that would increase it. I hope that the Minister will tell us why she thinks—if she does think it—that it is not reasonable that there should be an increase in road traffic as a result of that policy announcement.
The merits of the new clause speak for themselves. Once the House, the Government and the promoter had accepted the principle lying behind their amendment No. 13, it logically followed that my new clause should also be accepted.
Amendment No. 9 would add noise to the items listed as adverse impacts of road traffic. It is conspicuous in its absence in the Bill and we know from our constituents that it is a significant concern. Many of my constituents are affected by road traffic noise.
New clause 2 refers to the special needs of elderly people, who form a high proportion of my constituents. I know the extent to which they depend on motor vehicles to fulfil their transport needs.

Mr. Forth: I welcome the new clause, because it opens up debate on the Bill's undifferentiated approach to road traffic, which is a weakness. As hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, it is dangerous to regard all things with wheels as undesirable and to press for reduced traffic in some undifferentiated way. Such an approach is unproductive. The new clause teases out legitimate mobility needs which it might, in some cases, be desirable to meet. He mentioned the issue of meeting such needs in the context of this morning's announcement on nursery provision.
Even those who dislike motor vehicles and believe that traffic should be reduced must accept that there has to be a degree of differentiation between vehicles. In my view, several elements of traffic are essential components of modern living. Many people regret the increase in the number of out-of-town supermarkets, but it is a reality. An enormous development involving millions of square feet of retail and recreation space is being completed near my constituency. Many people and families from my constituency and elsewhere will want to visit it in all weathers in the security of their own vehicles.
We must be clearer about traffic of which we disapprove and therefore want to reduce, and about traffic that must be accepted as inevitable or even desirable. My hon. Friend mentioned elderly people, whose views should be listened to carefully. Many elderly people feel much more secure and comfortable in their own cars; indeed, it would be difficult for frail or disabled elderly people to use public transport, even if it were superb, modern, low-cost and secure.
At the other end of the spectrum are people with young children. It is legitimate or even highly desirable to take children to and from leisure, family and social activities in a car. I deliberately did not mention taking children to and from school. Many people in many areas experience traffic difficulties caused by people taking children, especially primary school children, to and from school by car, which is a recent development.
There is much less traffic on our roads during school holidays, but we are still faced with traffic problems. How should they be solved? If one argues for a dramatic reduction, perhaps to zero, of parents taking young children to school by car, one has to suggest an alternative. It is arguable whether it is feasible, logistically or in terms of cost, to envisage a school bus system that could fully replace all the journeys that now take place.
The onus is on those who support the Bill, and talk about the desirability of traffic reduction, to suggest which categories of traffic they believe can and should be reduced and how that could be achieved. What does one say to elderly people, who may be frail or unsteady on their feet? How can we tell them that we do not want their cars on the roads any more? How can we demand that they use public transport? What do we say to the parents of young children in urban areas, where they might feel threatened occasionally, or in rural areas, with longer distances to travel? Can we tell them that we will provide a satisfactory alternative means of transport for their children to reduce traffic?
I mentioned out-of-town supermarkets, those much criticised but much used facilities. It is odd how many people rush to criticise the out-of-town supermarket but use them happily. I myself happily use both an in-town and an out-of-town supermarket. With many parents both working, the weekly shop in a supermarket with adequate parking facilities has become part of the modern way of life and necessarily involves the use of a car. When I go shopping, as I do every week with my wife, our weekly shopping just for the two of us is more than I can envisage carrying on public transport. There is too much to carry other than in a car. I surmise that those with families must have to deal with much larger volumes of shopping. Is such traffic to be reduced? If so, what is the reasonable alternative?
If we are make sense of the Bill-if it is not to be merely declaratory or wishful thinking or comforting-it is essential that we take a much more detailed approach to it, as suggested in the new clause, and face up to the realities of modern life and the relationship that modern communities have with their motor cars. We must examine which categories of traffic can be criticised and expected to be reduced, and what the alternatives might be. When we reach that stage, we might begin to make some progress.
I welcome the new clause, and I hope that it will be accepted so that we can make more sense of the Bill than has hitherto been the case. I hope that we will have some encouraging news on that point from either the Minister or the promoter of the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise briefly to support the new clause. I am a car user, but, as a cyclist, I am also a supporter of the bicycle. When I first encountered Hyde park corner, I removed my bike from the road, took to the pavement and thought, "There's no way I can go round this." I then decided that I had as much right to use Hyde park corner as any motorist and embarked on the journey round it. I found that if one declared one's intentions sufficiently determinedly to motor transport, one tended to be given as much right to the highway as others enjoyed.
I wish to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about the elderly. It is important that when Ministers draw up the reports required by the Bill, they take particular account of the needs of the elderly, for whom the car is an important factor. As people approach old age, they realise that limitations are inevitably imposed on their independence. The motor car confers on them a continuing independence that would otherwise go the way of other forms of independence that they enjoy. It is not only a question of being able to use the car whenever they want but of feeling that, like the telephone, it is there for family emergencies and other circumstances.
I urge the Minister to consider seriously the needs of the elderly, along the lines suggested in respect of families with young children by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
1.45 pm
Amendment No. 9 would add noise to the list of adverse impacts of road traffic to be taken into consideration in drawing up the report. That is an


important factor and a noticeable omission from the list. When we were considering the original scheme for the Birmingham northern relief road, which would have gone through part of my then constituency, traffic noise was important to my constituents. We considered the relative impacts of different road surfaces. We noted that concrete surfaces tend to give off much more noise than do tarmac surfaces, despite what the Department of Transport said at the time about the scientific evidence showing that there was little difference. The truth is that the public perception is that tarmac road surfaces are less intrusive than concrete ones.
The Blackwater valley relief road in Aldershot uses a tarmac surface which has produced noticeably less noise than the surfaces of surrounding motorways. I hope that the noise factor will be added to the Bill. I say to the promoter of the Bill, as much as to the Minister, that I hope that that will be taken on board. With those two observations, I support the new clause.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion): On new clause 2, it is worth pointing out that mobility does not necessarily mean mobility in a motorised vehicle. Mobility can be enhanced by a reduction in the number of motorised vehicles. Some hon. Members know about the safe routes to school initiative, which enables children to get to school at peak travelling times through various methods facilitated locally. We need to consider the matters mentioned in the new clause.
On the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Bill is based on the assumption that it is possible to get a net reduction in road traffic, even recognising that in certain circumstances and in certain categories, there may well be increases. He should examine the work of various people on the subject, especially that of John Whitelegg, who shows clearly in what categories reduction can be brought about.
We do not think that new clause 2 should be included in the Bill, although we recognise that the considerations that it mentions must be borne in mind in drawing up the strategy. We do not need to put a strategy in a Bill. More appropriate for a Bill is the principle of targets, as is recognised increasingly in Government policy and legislation.
Finally, I am glad that we were able to table amendment No. 13 in response to concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I support amendment No. 13, standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), and I oppose new clause 2 and amendment No. 9, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
The hon. Members who spoke in support of new clause 2 and amendment No. 9 were espousing a policy of despair. They seemed to believe that it was virtually

impossible to reduce an over-dependence on the private car. They had no belief in a strategy to create an integrated transport system.

Mr. Chope: Does the Minister agree that today's announcement on the extension of nursery education places by some 60,000 is bound to lead to an overall increase in the amount of road traffic?

Ms Jackson: I had intended to touch on the particularly bizarre interpretation that the hon. Gentleman puts on an announcement by the Government which has been generally welcomed. The only person in the country who regards the provision of nursery places as leading automatically to an increase in traffic on our roads is the hon. Gentleman. Many of my constituents welcome the Government's provision of additional nursery places, in the knowledge that it will be possible for them to walk their children to such nursery places. It is not only education that parents value for their children, but the social skills inherent in such places.

Mr. Chope: In that case, will the Minister make it a condition of the new nursery places that nobody can take them up if they use a car to transport their children to the nurseries?

Ms Jackson: I question whether that contribution warrants any kind of response. The hon. Gentleman has moved from the bizarre to the overly fantastical.
The majority of parents wish their children to take the provision because of the undoubted educational and social advantages inherent in the additional places provided by the Government. They prefer the knowledge that such establishments are within their local areas. A matter of parental, and grandparental, concern is the danger of an ever-increasing number of cars on the roads and the inability for children to play in their own street.
New clause 2 refers to the needs of the elderly to get about, to see their families and to have social contact—all exclusively provided by the private car. Regrettably, this is the case in many instances because, for 18 long years, the previous Administration did little or nothing to create a properly integrated transport strategy. They actively introduced legislation which destroyed public transport as far as buses and the railways were concerned.
This Government have been actively engaged in putting that right since we took office. I do not share the philosophy of despair emanating from the Opposition that it will be impossible to reduce an over-dependence on the private car. Public transport, allied with other policies, will reduce traffic on roads.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked about cycles and, if he does not already know of it, I am sure that he will be delighted by the news that, despite tight spending limits, the Government have managed to find an additional £1 million for the London cycle network. We have asked that the money should be used strategically, especially to facilitate safe passage for cyclists around roundabouts.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of elderly people's dependence on their cars, for example, in emergencies. There is nothing in this or any other Bill that will impact on the use of the private car in such circumstances. The general thrust of the Bill is to reduce


the seemingly unstoppable growth of traffic on our roads, which impacts particularly on the elderly and on children by creating environments that are highly dangerous.
The hon. Gentleman supports amendment No. 9 and does not believe that the issue of noise pollution is sufficiently addressed in the Bill. I would argue that that is not the case: noise is covered by more than one of the sub-headings that the Secretary of State must consider in devising the targets he wishes to set, not least those issues connected with health and biodiversity.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can see how noise comes under matters of health, although I think that it is not entirely a matter of health, but rather one of irritation as well as health; however, I cannot understand how biodiversity comes into it. Can the Minister give me some guidance?

Ms Jackson: Certainly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are actively engaged in protecting sites of special scientific interest or sites where wildlife needs to be protected. The incursion of extreme noise in such areas can affect, for example, the breeding habits of birds. Therefore, if we regard our wildlife as part of a biodiverse structure, as I do, we see that noise can clearly inflict harm.
On amendment No. 13, provision will undoubtedly need to be made for people with disabilities, especially orange badge holders. Every local authority gives consideration to the needs of such people, and I see no reason why the Bill should work against that.
In addition, given the huge damage inflicted by the previous Administration on public transport in rural areas and because the current Government regard taxis as part of our public transport system, we believe that the amendment would enhance the Bill by covering two areas that require special notice in the legislation.
The other two amendments are essentially based on the list principle and, as I said in Committee, the trouble with lists is that someone is always left out. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will not press new clause 2 and amendment No. 9.

Mr. Chope: I disagree with almost everything the Minister has said. It will be noteworthy outside this place that she denies that 60,000 extra nursery school places will generate an increase in road traffic. That defies belief and shows that the Minister takes an unrealistic approach to the subject.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: No, because I want to make progress on the Bill and move on to the next group of amendments. I shall not press the new clause and the amendment, in the hope that the other place will be able to return to the issue and develop the list that the Minister has started in amendment No. 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY AND HYDROCARBON OIL DUTY

'() It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to publish annually a report on forecasts of the effect of changes in vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oil duty upon the level of road traffic in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2 pm

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Separate reports for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—
'.—It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State within six months of the commencement of this Act to publish separate figures for the incidence of road traffic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after 'England', insert 'other than London, London,'.
Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1)—

(a) for Scotland, unless he has obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) for Wales, unless he has obtained the consent of the Welsh Assembly.'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1) in respect of London unless he has obtained the consent of the Mayor of London and any body known as Transport for London established following Cm 3897.'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
'and before the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.'.

Mr. Chope: The thinking behind new clause 3 has its origins in this year's Red Book.
Table 5.3 on page 78 sets out the environmental impact of the increases in taxes on motoring and motorists. The increases in taxes announced in the Budget give an extra Exchequer yield of £1,720 million in 1998–99–£1.7 billion. On page 153 of the Red Book they are described as environmental measures, but table 5.3 shows that the swingeing fuel duty increases will reduce car mileage in 2010 by only 1.875 billion car miles, given that the Government's road traffic forecasts predict 351 billion car miles in 2010.
Those are very large figures, but in summary they show that less than half of 1 per cent. of the traffic that is predicted by the Government to be on our roads in 2010 will be removed as a result of those swingeing fuel duty increases.
That is why flat increases in fuel duties have been attacked by the Automobile Association and other experts. Indeed, some people from Friends of the Earth are extremely sceptical about the environmental benefit of those swingeing increases, and they are saying that they are a most ineffective way of reducing increases in road traffic.
It is worth pointing out that 125 billion fewer car miles per year must be travelled in 2010 if the Government are to achieve the target of the 10 per cent. traffic reduction


on 1990 figures signed up to in Hampstead high street by the Minister this time last year. That is 125 billion fewer car miles in 2010; the effect of the Budget is to reduce that amount by just 1.8 billion. There is an enormous credibility gap between what the Minister said in Hampstead high street and what Government policy will achieve, on the Government's own figures.
New clause 3 would require the Government to produce separate forecasts of the effect of changes in motoring taxation on different parts of the country. That would fit the new wording of the Bill, which calls on—but does not require—the Secretary of State to
set … targets for road traffic reduction in England, Wales and Scotland.
If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be possible to see how fairly the Government were allocating the extra proceeds of motoring taxation to public transport investment among the different parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister made much of public transport in her response to the previous short debate. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of his public transport package. He quoted a headline figure of £500 million, but, of course, when we examined the small print, we read that that was to be spread, not over one year, but over three, and that the £175 million total additional spending on public transport next year was only 10 per cent. of the extra tax yield from motorists.
Of the £500 million over three years, £50 million-only 10 per cent.—was identified as available for rural areas and, of that, only £5 million for community-based initiatives. People outside London are bound to draw a contrast between the paltry sum made available for public transport in rural areas and areas outside London and the £300 million for London Underground.
We were not told in the Budget statement that £300 million of the £500 million package that the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about would be allocated to London Underground a few days later by the Deputy Prime Minister, leaving a paltry amount to be spread around other public transport needs.
As we discussed in Committee, and as we are well aware, 35 per cent. of the population have access to regular public transport. Most of those people live in London—the city one of whose constituencies the Minister has the privilege to represent. However, an enormous number of people who live outside London—most of the other 65 per cent.—are paying the bulk of the fuel taxes because, by dint of geography and lack of public transport, they are obliged to travel further by car than those who live in the conurbation. People who live outside London are paying dearly through their taxes, and new clause 3 would force the Government to come clean about that.
New clause 6 would require separate figures for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with regard to road traffic forecasts. Those figures are not produced in the 1997 forecasts. Amendment No. 15 seeks separate targets for England other than London and for London. That is a reasonable amendment in light of the Government's recent London White Paper. Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 10 seek the involvement of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for

Wales, the mayor of London and Transport for London in this process. They are reasonable amendments advanced in an attempt to make the Bill better. It is already a better Bill as a result of the pressure that I applied in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), and the Government will accept those amendments.

Mr. Forth: I support amendment No. 1 and new clause 6. I take my cue in this matter from remarks of the Minister in Committee, which are relevant to my amendment. She said:
there is no equality between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom in terms of car ownership … there are also wide disparities in economic potential and employment prospects. There are many other variations throughout the United Kingdom's comparatively small land mass.
She went on to say:
In reducing greenhouses gases, for example, each of the four territories of the United Kingdom is responsible for playing its part in achieving national targets.
Finally, and most tellingly, she said:
setting a flat rate for every territory of the United Kingdom to work towards would be unachievable, ineffective and not in the best interests of all the territories concerned."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1998; c. 83.]
That statement was helpful in Committee, and it will certainly assist our deliberations at this stage of the Bill's progress. Even more helpful were the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who said:
In the Bill, 'national' refers to England, Wales and Scotland. Let me clarify that 'UK targets' refers to the whole of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 March 1998; c. 84.]
My amendment and new clause 6 would acknowledge the role that the new Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will increasingly play in our governance. That point is directly relevant. Following the Minister's comments about the variations that exist throughout the United Kingdom—she mentioned several different factors—the hon. Member for Ceredigion went on to talk about England, Wales and Scotland. That leads inevitably to the realisation that the new bodies, which will be responsible for different parts of the United Kingdom, should and must be involved in the process of target setting that the Bill sets in train.
Logically, we cannot have a national target comprising the totality of different regional targets while, as a result of the Government's constitutional changes, having bodies with extensive responsibilities for their own parts of the United Kingdom. Those same bodies must be an integral part of the process. Surely the Government, and particularly the hon. Member for Ceredigion—given his loyalties and those of his party—would want to ensure the maximum possible involvement of the new bodies, with their new responsibilities, in the process that the Bill requires. In saying that, I thought that I would be going with the flow of what may be characterised as "modern thinking". I am not the greatest devotee of the devolution process, but it is proceeding apace.
That leads to another issue that was raised in Committee and on which the Minister may be able to help us further. Given what I am arguing about the responsibilities in Scotland and Wales, I assume that the figures for England will continue to be produced by the Department. That raises as an interesting side


issue the possibility of an English parliament. Recognition of the national identities and responsibilities in Scotland and Wales leaves us in the anomalous position that Whitehall and Westminster remain responsible for English matters because there is no other body to assume that responsibility. I shall not pursue that thought, but it is a consideration.
I wish that I could have made specific reference to England in my amendment, but that would probably not have been allowed. The anomaly remains that we expect English figures to be produced by what remains of the national bodies in Westminster and Whitehall, whereas the regional figures, if I may call them that, will have to involve the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me. In drawing up the reports, as the United Kingdom Minister will be required to do, will he need the approval of the Scottish Parliament before drawing up targets for Scotland, as transport is not a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Forth: I am not sufficiently expert to give my hon. Friend a confident reply. In order for the national targets required by the Bill to be firmly based, in order to take account of the diversity and variety that the Minister pointed out so eloquently in Committee and in order to recognise the important role to be played by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly, my amendment suggests that those bodies must be involved as an integral part of the process. Taken together with new clause 6, that produces a more coherent picture.
It follows the logic of the previous group of amendments that we should recognise the huge diversity in the nature of traffic, and the vehicles and users that make up that traffic, and that, in parallel, we should take account of the regional variations in the United Kingdom in patterns of traffic and so on. It is well known that there are enormous variations between the large, empty spaces of most of Scotland and the traffic generated in and around London and the south-east of England.
I hope that those comments are relatively uncontroversial and that they add to the effectiveness of the Bill, rather than detracting from it. I hope also that they take full account of the important developments taking place in our constitution.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I oppose new clauses 3 and 6, and amendments Nos. 15, 1, 16 and 10. I was not aware that the work of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in Committee had strengthened the Bill, or that any of his amendments were accepted. I am sure that all rural communities will be interested to note that he opposes the fact that the Chancellor has found £50 million a year over the next three years for the restructuring of public transport in such areas, given that the Administration whom the hon. Gentleman served privatised bus services and reduced many rural areas to a public transport system that is non-existent or totally inadequate.
New clause 3 is unnecessary. The Bill places on the Secretary of State under clause 2(1) or (2) a duty to have regard to the impact of any changes in vehicle excise duty

or fuel duty on road traffic. Those, however, are only two of the triggers available to the Secretary of State. He will need to consider a wide range of factors; there is no reason to single out this particular fiscal trigger; nor would it be sensible to list all the potential triggers available to a Secretary of State in setting and achieving targets.
New clause 6 is unnecessary. Road traffic statistics are currently produced at regular intervals, so there is no need for specific legislation.
The Bill's subject matter is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, provides for analogous legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 refer to London. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this week that, subject to the referendum to be held on 7 May, there will be a directly elected mayor for London from 2000. The mayor will be responsible for transport in the capital. The White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" makes it clear that the mayor's integrated transport strategy will be set in the context of a national policy. It therefore makes no sense to set separate figures for London or to require the consent of the mayor to measures that we believe should be applied nationally.
I cannot support either amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 10. The existence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales is contingent on the devolution legislation going through, which cannot, for the purposes of the Bill, be assumed. If the legislation were passed in advance of the Bill, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales would automatically be involved in the way suggested by the amendments, as the subject matter of Bill would be a devolved matter in both countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press the new clause.

Mr. Chope: I am disappointed in not just the content, but the manner of delivery, of the Minister's reply: she is being totally graceless about the matter. She knows that in Committee a number of the points that I raised were accepted by the Bill's promoter, if not by her, and that one of the amendments in the first group arose directly as a result of points that I first raised in Committee.
I wish to move quickly to the final group of amendments, so I shall not respond in more detail to what the Minister said. I can say that I do not agree with almost anything that she has uttered in the Chamber this afternoon.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5

REPORTS UNDER ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION ACT 1997

'() The Secretary of State shall not require any local authority to produce a report pursuant to the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 until at least six months after the publication by the Secretary of State of the first report under section 2— [Mr. Chope]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, after 'Act', insert
'and which is made within six months of the coming into effect of this Act'.

Mr. Chope: The new clause links the Bill with the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. The thinking behind it is to put pressure on the Minister to produce her report, under clause 2, more quickly than she has suggested hitherto. She has suggested that she will produce the first report around the year 2000. The Government said that they wanted national targets, but they are now saying that they will wait for information from local authorities before deciding to set any targets—if so, what targets? The Government have it round the wrong way. It is reasonable to expect the Government to set the national framework and then for the local authorities to follow on from that. I understood that that was the point that the Minister was seeking to make in answer to points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the previous debate.
Amendment No. 11 arises from a commitment made by the Minister in Committee to extend the Bill by Order in Council to Northern Ireland within three to four months of its enactment. It would require that to be done by affirmative resolution if it were delayed beyond six months from enactment. That measure tries to put pressure on the Government.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am delighted that I disappointed the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I take no particular pride in that because, of course, it is so easy for me so to do. To be dubbed graceless by Conservative Members I regard as no small compliment.
I oppose new clause 5 and amendment No. 11. It would not be sensible to delay the production of local authority reports. There seemed to be a somewhat ironic paradox in the argument of the hon. Member for Christchurch. He was critical of the time scale for publishing a national target, yet wished to delay local authority work. In drawing up their report, the Government will want to look closely at the targets set by local authorities and their likely effect on traffic levels. The reports will play a valuable part in devising and stating the national target. Therefore, any delay in their production would not be helpful.
I turn to amendment No. 11, which I oppose on legal advice. I understand that a time limit cannot be prescribed in the Bill, as it would be incompatible with the constitutional arrangements applying to Northern Ireland as regards the treatment of devolved matters. It is however usual for an Order in Council to be made within three to four months of enactment of a Bill in Westminster. I assure the House that the Government have no intention of delaying the process. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Chope: There have been times during the Minister's remarks when I have wondered whether it is her purpose to try to ensure that the Bill is talked out by so provoking me. I am not going to fall for that old trick. I shall reserve my venom for the Minister for another occasion. I hope that she becomes the mayoral candidate for London so that we can campaign against her in Hampstead high street and tell people there exactly what she was saying a year ago and is now completely disregarding in her attitude to the Bill. The Bill was an embarrassment for her in Committee. If I were charitable, I would say that that might be the reason for the tone of some of her remarks.
I shall ask leave to withdraw the motion, to enable completion of Report today. I hope that, as a result, people who have suggested at various stages in the proceedings that it was my objective to frustrate and destroy the Bill will withdraw those allegations. As we know, actions speak louder than words. That is why we are so critical of the Minister's behaviour—having behaved in one way on Hampstead high street and not being able in Committee to explain her actions that day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION TARGETS

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 1, line 27, at end insert—

'(3A) In considering how to comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the mobility needs of persons with disabilities, and
(b) the need for an adequate provision of taxi services in rural and non-rural areas.'. — [Ms Glenda Jackson.]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Friday 24 April.

Local Authority Tenders Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: RESTRICTION OF DUTY TO EXCLUDE NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12.
I hope that we can deal with this matter very quickly. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), the Bill's promoter, has gone to extraordinary lengths to deal with the questions raised by my amendments. I do not want to delay the House; I simply want to raise a matter that bothers me considerably.
The Bill states:
If … an order under subsection (1) above would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.
Because of the diligence of the promoter of the Bill, it just so happens that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), wrote to try to reassure me that that would not necessarily happen. For the sake of completeness, I shall read out an extract from his letter so that the details are clear to all. I hope that that is an acceptable way of proceeding.
The letter says:
Your first amendment would remove the provision in the Bill making it unnecessary for an order to follow the hybrid instrument procedure in the House of Lords. In fact, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will make an order under the proposed power which would be subject to the hybrid instruments procedure. We envisage that any order would affect public authorities, their functions and contracts across the board. However, in the unlikely event that an order were made in respect of an individual local authority, I believe the provision in the Bill is necessary in order to avoid delay in its implementation. Moreover, the requirement in the Bill to obtain the approval of both Houses to a draft order is in itself a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of the power to make an order.
The Minister seemed to be saying that it was unlikely that the measure would need to be used. That is a matter of judgment. He then said that he still wanted the power to be available. The promoter explained to me that she thought that it would be necessary to allow the running of pilot schemes to demonstrate what the Bill is intended to do.
In the context, that makes some sense, but whether we should accept the last sentence in that passage from the letter —
the requirement in the Bill to obtain the approval of both Houses to a draft order is in itself a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of the power to make an order" —
as the reassurance offered is a matter of judgment.

Mr. David Maclean: I must confess that I had paid no attention to the point until I saw my right hon. Friend's amendments on the amendment paper, which forced me to read the Bill again.

The provision seems extraordinary to me. In the extensive research that I am aware he conducts on such matters, has my right hon. Friend come across any other examples of clauses in Bills with words to the effect of "Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill", or order, "may be hybrid, it is given carte blanche to be treated as if it were not hybrid", thereby obviating the need to use the procedures of the House?

Mr. Forth: I am not aware of any precedent.

Ms Oona King: The provisions that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to amend are fairly normal in such cases. Recent examples include section 79(4) of the Airports Act 1986, section 34(4) of the Police Act 1996 and section 87(9) of the Environment Act 1995. I shall not continue, but there are several other examples.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the promoter of the Bill, who obviously does her homework, too—extraordinarily thoroughly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) can see.
I was about to conclude my remarks on the subject by saying that it is for right hon. and hon. Members to judge whether they should accept the safeguard that the Minister offers us—the need for the approval of both Houses for a draft order. From the Opposition Benches now, looking at the size of the Government's majority and the way in which they use it, at the attitude of Ministers and at the Government's proposals for the upper House, all I can say is that I leave it for others to judge whether the safeguard offered is sufficient.

Mr. Maclean: When a Bill or order is regarded as hybrid, is there not a special procedure whereby representatives of the private interests that may be affected can appear before a special Select Committee to put their case, as happens with private Bills? If the Bill goes ahead with the wording in the clause unchanged, that would not happen in some cases. We shall have to look at the precedents in the Acts that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned. I cannot recall their being brought to my attention when they went through the House.

Mr. Forth: I suspect that my right hon. Friend is right. I have received assurances and, thanks to the promoter of the Bill, I met someone from the private sector who assured me that he and the rest of the private sector were fully satisfied that the Bill would help them in tendering and contracting for local government. He did not seem unduly bothered about the provision.
The letter so kindly transmitted to me by the Minister at least attempts to answer the question about hybridity, and I thought that the House should be aware of what it said.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out the number of times that orders have been made. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned that there should be no abuse of power. The Bill requires the approval of both Houses before a


draft order can be made, so that is a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of power. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Mr. Forth: In view of the letter from the Under-Secretary and what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.
I tabled the amendment because I was uneasy about the two-month implementation period in the Bill—
It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Bill to be further considered on Friday 24 April.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL

Order read for consideration in Committee.

Hon. Members: Object.

Committee deferred till Friday 24 April.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 April.

SCHOOL CHILDREN'S CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR (VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

DOOR SUPERVISORS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

FARMING OF ANIMALS FOR FUR (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

VOLUNTARY PERSONAL SECURITY CARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Regional Development Agencies Bill:

1. The proceedings on consideration shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock on Wednesday 1st April and proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

3. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order—

(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question that any remaining new Clauses or new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made; and
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Middle East

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. George Galloway: First, I extend my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his important initiative, during his recent tour of middle eastern capitals, which attempted to restart the ailing middle east peace process. I noticed in this morning's press that my right hon. Friend is to be denied the pleasure of yet another dinner as a result of his principled and courageous efforts to achieve peace with honour, peace with justice, and peace for land in the middle east.
The well-publicised rudeness of Netanyahu, and that of his settler supporters and his police, tried but failed to divert world attention from the importance of illegally occupied Jerusalem. The Foreign Secretary was right to visit the illegal settlement in occupied Jerusalem. He was also right to say publicly that Jerusalem was a Palestinian capital as well. It is occupied in exactly the way that Kuwait was occupied by Iraq—by armed force. It is held in defiance of repeated decisions by the United Nations Security Council.
Similar rudeness by Netanyahu's cheerleaders here in Britain will equally fail, and will merely draw further attention to their hero's arrogant refusal to implement international law and solemn and binding treaties signed by his predecessors.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in anticipation of his visit to the Palestine National Authority. There are great expectations of him and his visit in the territory. Like the Foreign Secretary's efforts, the prospect of the visit has done much to lift the air of despair and depression in the Arab world and has buttressed the standing of this country in an area that is of great interest to us.
We maintain a huge balance of trade surplus with the Arab world. Our annual trade with Saudi Arabia alone is worth £3.8 billion—more than the total in trade with the whole of Latin America. Our surplus with the United Arab Emirates alone is £1 billion per year. We must never forget that, in pursuing a more balanced policy in the middle east, we are not only doing what is right, but serving our national interest, which is, after all, a legitimate part of any Government's foreign policy.
The middle east is historically important to us—nobody knows the area better than we do. We were guiding statecraft in Arabia when the cowboys were still wiping out the indigenous population of America and when the idea of obliterating the name Palestine from the maps of the world would have seemed incredible. The other day, Netanyahu had the nerve to say that the Europeans had no place in the middle east peace process because they did not understand the area. The House will recall that Sykes and Picot were not Americans.
The truth is that the reason why Netanyahu does not want us in the peace process is not that we do not understand the area, but that we understand it only too well. We understand the canyon of despair in the middle east that was created by the failure of Netanyahu to implement the Oslo agreements and by the failure of the United Nations and the world to force him to do so.


That is what the Government have been told by our friends in the area—people who are our good customers and loyal allies, and who have taken considerable risks for peace.
I am talking about friends such as Qatar's admirable Foreign Minister Sheikh Hammed, who has expressed his fears about the rise of fanaticism in the area in the wake of that failure. The Crown Prince of Jordan last night spelt out on television the high price that our friends the Jordanians are paying and may yet pay for the paralysis in the peace process and the continuing crisis in the Gulf. The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, warned us of the shock waves of extremism that lurk in the Arab world, which will be unleashed unless something is done.
I had the opportunity of following the progress of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary while I was in three Arab countries—Syria, Jordan and Iraq—to which I travelled at the expense of, and in my capacity as, secretary of the Emergency Committee on Iraq. I can therefore tell the House that the British Government's stance—advocated in the name of the European Union, the largest collection of democracies in the world—was warmly received in both the chanceries and streets of the Arab world.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should not be deterred by the predictable chorus of pro-Netanyahu propaganda that is recycled—to their discredit—by some Opposition Members and some newspapers, who irresponsibly adopt the Israeli line on these events not because they support Netanyahu, but because they are out to damage the Foreign Secretary and the Government.
As I said, I recently returned from that other flashpoint in the area—Iraq. Again, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the generosity of spirit with which he received my entreaties on behalf of the suffering children of that country. My right hon. Friend has always said that Britain has no quarrel with the ordinary people of Iraq, and I have always said that we should go out of our way to prove that—this, he has done.
There are encouraging signs of peace breaking out in Iraq. Mr. Richard Butler, the far from easily pleased head of the United Nations Special Commission spoke earlier this week of
a remarkable new atmosphere of co-operation
emerging between the United Nations inspectorate, its diplomatic escorts and the Iraqi Government. The first presidential site was successfully visited by a huge UNSCOM team yesterday.
When I met Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz last week, I stressed to him the importance of the swift and comprehensive implementation of the agreement brokered with great skill by the United Nations Secretary-General. I stressed the importance of avoiding at all costs any mistakes or misunderstandings in the implementation of those accords. The Deputy Prime Minister was clear that Iraq would implement the Secretary-General's agreement, both in spirit and to the letter.
Judging by what Mr. Butler has said, progress has started well. At this rate, the sites about which so much has been said will all have been inspected soon. Of course, there are rather fewer of them than we were told at the

height of the recent crisis—eight rather than 48—and they are rather smaller than we were told or, indeed, shown on specially prepared maps here in the Chamber. Alas, the quality of our intelligence from Iraq has been poor, perhaps deliberately so.
In any case, let us be positive. That means that the job will be completed all the sooner. We must hope so, because time is running out for the long-suffering people of Iraq, a nation of 22 millions, with which we have had a long and close association and with which, not so long ago, we conducted huge volumes of business—I am talking about respectable business and not the obscenities of the arms trade—whose people we educated in our universities in huge numbers and whose tourists used to come here in greater numbers than from any other Arab country.
Time is running out because even a people with the fortitude of the Iraqis cannot suffer the depredations of sanctions indefinitely. Pre-famine conditions exist in Iraq, as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation has stated. UNICEF, the United Nation's Childrens Fund, says that 31 per cent. of Iraqi children under five are suffering from chronic malnutrition—almost one in three. On average, every child in Iraq suffers around 15 bouts of diarrhoea a year with a one in 50 chance of dying from what is an easily cured condition.
The Government may say that food and medicine are not covered by sanctions, but that is misleading to the point of being untrue. First, the current levels of the oil-for-food deal, which are double what they were, allow Iraq to sell just £2 billion worth of oil every six months, with strict UN supervision of how the money is spent. Of that sum, more than one third is deducted immediately for reparations payments to Kuwait and to cover the cost of the vast UN apparatus in Kuwait and Iraq. That leaves less than £3 billion per year for all food, medicines and other supplies for a country with a population nearly half the size of Britain's—30 cents per person per day.
To obtain a comparison, let us look at our expenditure on our health service alone of £44 billion per year. We see that the figure falls grotesquely short of Iraq's needs before even taking into account the aggregate effect of seven and a half long years of sanctions. It is true that the Government are proposing a further doubling of the amount, but it is equally true that Iraq cannot pump the amount of oil needed to realise that new sum without substantial rehabilitation of its capacity. Even if the figure is doubled to 60 cents per day, it will be a drop in the ocean.
Iraq is a sea of water-borne diseases. The sewerage systems have collapsed and the water purification systems too. Sometimes, solid waste comes through the taps. Many parts of Iraq have had no electricity since the war and all parts still suffer power black-outs, even hospitals, sometimes during operations. Cholera, typhoid and enteric diseases are on the march in that once-modern land. In 1990, there were 485 cases of Kwashiorkor, the starvation affliction introduced to the word's public in Biafra 30 years ago. Last year in Iraq, there were 28,475 cases. I beg my hon. Friend not to treat those figures as though they were controversial. They are not mine—I have deliberately chosen figures produced by the United Nations agencies.
I walked through that misery in Iraq last week, and hard-bitten journalists from the American, French, German and British media wept with me at what we found


in two children's hospitals, which were filthy because cleaning materials are banned under sanctions. Cleaners do not turn up to work because their salaries are only $2 a month, and doctors sweep floors as well as treating patients and comforting their families for only $3 a month. There are no sheets on beds, because they are banned under sanctions, and other bedclothes are washed in diesel, because detergents are banned under sanctions.
Hospital equipment has virtually all broken down, and spare parts are banned under sanctions. There is almost no intravenous fluid: it, too, is banned under sanctions, as are insulin; vitamins; until recently, syringes; doctors' pencils; and even plastic bags that hold blood or collect waste matter from open wounds. Anaesthetic is virtually unobtainable, as are radiotherapy treatment and X-rays, which are banned under sanctions.
Drugs are either unaffordable or undependable, and arrive in the wrong combinations at the wrong times. Much worse, a cancer epidemic afflicting many children who were not born at the time of the conflict between this country and Iraq appears to have broken out. In 1989, there were 2,185 cases of leukaemia, and 385 deaths. In 1996, there were 9,785 new cases of cancer, and 3,320 deaths. The figures for 1997 suggest that the trend is accelerating.
The incomparable Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, and other noble British journalists who are investigating this disaster, point to the enormous bombardment of southern Iraq in 1991 with 927,000 uranium-tipped aircraft bullets and 30,000 armour-piercing shells which were tipped with depleted uranium for greater penetrative power. Those weapons were tested in Scotland, and 20 tonnes of them still lie festering in the Solway firth, but 300 tonnes of uranium dust has been left in the sands of the Gulf—in the water and in the food chain, and in the chests and blood of the children of Iraq.
Our own service men were ignored by the previous Government when they complained of Gulf war syndrome. Fisk argues that the syndrome and the suffering of the Iraqis, who were on the receiving end of the ordnance, may be linked. Like the children of parents poisoned by agent orange, the American chemical weapon used in attacks on the peoples of Vietnam, Iraqi children are victims of a conflict that they did not choose and could not affect.
Having visited the cancers on Iraq's children, we would be putting them in double jeopardy if we maintained a blockade that effectively starved Iraq's children of the remedies. I cannot prove that those weapons cause the cancers, but there is a case to answer, and the question mark hanging over it is so large that it demands a response.
We have an armada of soldiers and sailors armed with cruise missiles standing to in the Arabian gulf. Hon. Members would do much to inform the people of Iraq of the values of western civilisation if we sent an army of cancer experts armed with radiotherapy equipment, diagnostic tools and suitcases of chemotherapy drugs to help the beleaguered Iraqi health service to combat this malignancy.
This policy must end sooner or later—we are not fighting the hundred years war—and it no longer commands the support in the Arab world, among our European partners or in the Security Council that it did. It would be better to bring the policy to an end in a

calculated and negotiated way. If that is not done, it will begin to collapse in ways which we cannot accurately foretell and which may lead to even more terrifying instability in the region, to the detriment of people with whom we have no quarrel, of friendly Governments in the neighbouring middle eastern countries and, ultimately, of our own national interests.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) for his remarks and his congratulations to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? I agree with my hon. Friend that those congratulations were well earned.
I shall first address the need for urgent progress in the middle east peace process. My hon. Friend is right to say that a deep sense of frustration and despair is felt in all the Arab countries, which has been built up by the lack of progress in the peace process. We are keen to see progress because we believe that it is in the interests of everyone, including Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of the region.
One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the speech that he did a few weeks ago, which achieved such widespread support and acclamation, was that he wanted to ensure a distinct and clear European Union voice in the process. He also wished to set out our ambitions and aspirations for the middle east peace process.
My hon. Friend will have watched recent developments. We have set out the important steps that we believe need to be taken by the parties. We have always stressed that the parties are under an obligation to fulfil their commitments under previous agreements. It does not make any difference in international law if those agreements are signed by a previous Government: the simple fact is that they are signed on behalf of states, not by individual Governments, and the commitments do not fall into abeyance once the Government changes. It is crucial that all the parties carry out the commitments that they have undertaken in previous agreements.
As my hon. Friend said, we have been even-handed. We have reminded the Palestinians of their obligations. We have talked about the need for the Palestinians to deliver on security and, as part of our presidency of the European Union, we have made clear our commitment to the Palestinians to help with that issue.
I am pleased to tell the House that there is now a strong view in the United States and among our European Union colleagues that the Palestinians are making every possible effort to deliver on their security obligations. We wish them well, because security is a crucial part of the process of developing and maintaining confidence.
We have also said that no other action should be taken by either party that diverts attention from or undermines the existing process. For that reason, as my hon. Friend knows, we have been strong in our criticism of settlements, because they contradict international law and are in contravention of the spirit of the peace process. The settlements make it difficult, if not impossible, to restore the confidence that is crucial to making progress. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a strong statement about settlements on his recent visit to the middle east. We will continue to make such statements, because they are important. Israel should not


be able to pre-empt the final status negotiations by continued settlement development. That position is not unique to the United Kingdom: it is held by the European Union and has been affirmed on many occasions by the United States.
The Foreign Secretary, in his speech recently, also said that there was a need for other action that would enable the peace process to move forward. He itemised four areas that are especially important. First, progress needs to be made on further redeployments. I hope that it is clearly understood that the term is "redeployments" in the plural. Commitments exist that make it clear that the next redeployment will not be the last in the process before final status negotiations. We have argued that there must be meaningful and significant movement on further redeployments. The figures have been discussed and are out in the open in rumour form, but it is important that more progress is made.
The other areas in which progress can be made are economic measures to win confidence, the development of the industrial estate in Gaza and the opening of the airport there, and the provision of the southern safe passage route. All those measures will restore confidence. It is a remarkable testimony to the patience of the Palestinian people that, since the Oslo peace accords, their living standards have fallen, on average, by nearly 40 per cent. That must make it difficult for the average Palestinian to have any confidence in the peace process, but they still appear to be strongly committed to it. It is important that those interim economic measures are taken to build confidence and, above all, to maintain and improve living standards.
My hon. Friend was in Palestine at the same time as I was, just over two years ago, for the Palestine National Authority elections. He knows that that was a day of great hope, not only for the Palestinians but for those of us who had the opportunity of talking to ordinary Israelis. They, too, hoped that two neighbouring democracies were being born in the middle east that could work together and build confidence, one in the other. We must ensure that hope is put back into the peace process so that the ordinary people of the region can see a future. We must replace frustration with hope.
My hon. Friend has a clear commitment from the Government, as part of our European Union presidency and beyond, that we will give a high priority in our diplomatic efforts to ensuring progress in the middle east peace process.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are in regular close consultation with our European Union partners and with the United States to discuss ways in which we can advance the process. There is good collaboration between Europe and the United States. We hope that before too long—the quicker, the better—the United States will table its own proposals. They will be watershed proposals that open the prospect of making the progress that we all seek. Europe will have played a significant part in delivering them to the table and creating confidence in the process.
I welcome my hon. Friend's opening comments on those issues. He has from me the assurance that we will continue to be active in the middle east peace process.
My hon. Friend talked about several issues relating to Iraq. I congratulate him on the points that he made to the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz. It is crucial that the agreement made by Kofi Annan is adhered to; there must be compliance. We are pleased that, so far, there has been co-operation and that the inspections are going ahead. We have always argued that there had to be unrestricted access. So far, we have to report that progress has been reassuring, and we wish that to continue.
When my hon. Friend was speaking, I was reminded of an important point. If Iraq can now co-operate so fully with the inspection regime, why did it not co-operate earlier? That shows that responsibility for the continuation of sanctions rests with the Iraqi regime and no one else. We have always said that compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions would lead to the lifting of sanctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that non-compliance over the years—the refusal to go along with the inspection team—has created the problems that may now exist in the form that he described. The fact is that such co-operation could have been given by the Iraqi regime a long time ago, and many of the issues could have been resolved. If that had been the case, Iraq would have been free of its weapons of mass destruction.
When my hon. Friend visited other capitals in the region, he would have been told time and again that those countries share our objective of ensuring that Iraq is clear of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They want Iraq to be clear of its weapons of mass destruction.
My hon. Friend was very kind in his comments on the Government's concern for the ordinary people of Iraq. He is right that we have no argument with the ordinary people of Iraq. The Government have been proud to take action in two important areas. First, we led in the Security Council to ensure that there was a new humanitarian Security Council resolution. We were responsible for taking the initiative to double the amount of oil that could be sold by Iraq to meet a range of requirements. We are proud to have taken that position, and it is further evidence that the United Kingdom has no argument with the ordinary people of Iraq. We are trying to deliver to the ordinary people of Iraq.
We have taken a further initiative in calling for a conference—to take place next month, we hope—to look at the humanitarian issues and the ways of providing further assistance to the ordinary people of Iraq. We have got together with our European Union partners, and the conference will involve other countries. We hope that we can be imaginative in dealing with some of the issues of immediate importance to the people of Iraq.
My hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the case of Marian Hamza, although he did not mention that case today. My right hon. Friend has replied, and will do all he can to ensure that appropriate humanitarian assistance is made available. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep in touch with us on those issues.
My hon. Friend referred to the use of depleted uranium and his fears in that respect. Given the shortness of time available and the importance of the issue, I promise to write to him to do justice to his remarks. It would be wrong at this stage to try to push those aside with a sleight of parliamentary hand. My hon. Friend deserves a fuller


reply, and it may be useful to the House if, with his agreement, I make my reply available through the House of Commons Library.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for raising the issues. The middle east is important to the UK. As he rightly said, we have experience and expertise in the region. We are determined to be fair and active players, and we understand the importance of the issues, and the concerns and priorities of all people. If we can deliver

political solutions to what have been intractable problems, it will be a real contribution by this Government and the United Kingdom. We will work towards those with our best endeavours. As always, we cannot promise satisfaction—
The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.